Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEMOLITION ORDERS, WELLINGBOROUGH.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the approval of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), I am presenting a Public Petition on behalf of 818 persons living within the Urban District of Wellingborough. The persons signing the Petition include, in the main, occupiers of property as well as owners of property.
Your Petitioners complain that they have suffered great hardship as a result of the Housing Acts, 1925–36, which empower local authorities to make compulsory demolition orders against their property, but do not provide for the payment of compensation for the loss of their property. Your Petitioners pray—That where it is considered necessary in the interests of the public health that property belonging to them should be demolished adequate compensation should be paid to those of them who are owners of the property for the loss of the property; and to those of them who are occupiers of the property for the loss of goodwill of any trade or business. That an appropriate tribunal be set up independent of the Ministry of Health and local authorities to assess the measure of compensation payable in each particular case, regard being given in making such assessment to the value of the property, or the goodwill of a business in open market, before any proceedings are taken under the Housing Acts. That particularly hard cases that have occurred already should be re-examined sympathetically. That, in the meanwhile, steps should be taken to give effect to the publicly declared policy of the Ministry of Health in the district of Wellingborough.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Brighton Corporation (Transport) Bill,

Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Gateshead and District Tramways and Trolley Vehicles Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (LOUTH DRAINAGE DISTRICT) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under Part III of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, relating to Louth Drainage District," presented by Mr. W. S. Morrison; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAYS WITH PAY (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Amulree Report in regard to industries where statutory bodies for the enforcement of minimum rates of wages exist, in order to give trade boards and agricultural wages committees power to make provision for one week's holiday with pay?

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now state when it is proposed to introduce the legislation recommended in the report of the Committee on Holidays with Pay?

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about the report of the Committee on Holidays with Pay?

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the report on Holidays with Pay?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Consideration has now been given to the recommendations of the Committee on Holidays with Pay. The Government welcome these recommenda-


tions and desire to give effect to them to the fullest practicable extent. I propose, in conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to introduce a Bill empowering trade boards and agricultural wages committees to provide for holidays with pay, and enabling the machinery of the Ministry of Labour to be used, if desired, in the administration of holiday schemes. If there is a general desire to facilitate the passage of this Bill as a non-contentious measure, I hope to be able to pass it into law during the present Session. I do not think it will be opportune to include in this Bill any proposal for dealing specially with domestic servants, as was recommended by the committee.
The Government attach special importance to the recommendations for encouraging voluntary agreements for holidays with pay, and for stimulating the co-ordination of industrial, educational, transport, lodging and other holiday arrangements which is essential if workers are to be enabled to take proper advantage of their holidays. These recommendations do not require legislation. Questions of co-ordination of holiday arrangements concern a number of different Departments and a standing Inter-departmental Committee is being set up to deal with this aspect of the matter. In this connection I am also setting up a special branch in the Ministry of Labour.
The committee's proposals with regard to the fixing of the Easter holiday will be borne in mind, but I am advised that there is no immediate prospect of being able to give effect to them.
As regards the general legislation which the committee recommended for a later date, the Government intend to give consideration in due course to such legislation if circumstances are such as to make it necessary, but at the present time it is not possible to forecast the nature of the legislation which will be required.

Mr. R. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision of the Government will be received with great satisfaction throughout the country, and can he further say whether the Government are now definitely committed to the principle of a week's holiday with pay, and whether the Government propose to implement the recommendation of the Amulree Report that, if holidays with pay

throughout industry are not universal before the year 1940, the Government should make it compulsory?

Mr. Brown: I would ask my hon. Friend to read the answer, and he will find that all these things are covered.

Mr. Lawson: When will the Bill be at the disposal of Members?

Mr. Brown: At the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Mander: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal by legislation now with all the recommendations in the Amulree Report where immediate action is recommended, or is he only going to deal with some of them?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will see that the two immediate recommendations are covered, namely, empowering trade boards and agricultural wages committees to provide for holidays with pay.

Mr. T. Williams: Are we to understand from the reply of the Minister that the only power he is giving to the agricultural wages committees is to decide either in favour of or against a week's holiday with pay for agricultural workers?

Mr. Brown: Certainly, that is the recommendation of the committee. It will be for the trade boards or the agricultural wages committees to make up their mind if and when they desire this reform.

Mr. Mabane: Does the reply of the Minister mean that the Government are or are not going to appoint a date under the Fixed Easter Act?

Mr. Brown: As I have pointed out, there is no immediate prospect of being able to give effect to that because, as my hon. Friend knows, there are international difficulties.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general satisfaction which his statement may bring to many people will not carry in Lancashire, inasmuch as the majority of workers there have no hope of receiving that of which he speaks, unless the Government bring forward legislation?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that the hon. Member's predecessor would have agreed with that statement.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not clear that this legislation is clearly permissive in character?

Mr. Brown: That is exactly the recommendation of the committee.

Mr. Shinwell: Then why thank the Government?

Mr. R. Robinson: What steps is my right hon. Friend prepared to take to make this compulsory?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in receipt of Unemployment Assistance Board allowance in Northumberland; how many received the winter increase; and what was the total amount paid as special allowance?

Mr. E. Brown: In the Board's administrative area of Blyth, Blaydon, Elswick, Newcastle, Heaton, Wallsend and North Shields, which together cover, though they are not co-terminous with, the county of Northumberland, the number of assessments current on 17th January last was 20,689. In 9,949 of these cases the assessment included a winter addition. The total amount paid by way of special allowance cannot be stated, but the average weekly value per case was approximately 2s.

Mr. Taylor: Are any of the recipients still in receipt of the allowance?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question, and I will give him an answer.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the winter of the unemployed has been considerably lengthened by this Government, and will he, therefore, extend the period of the allowance?

Mr. Brown: 250,000 workers seem to think that their winter will be lessened.

SOUTH-WEST DURHAM (DRAINAGE).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether anything has yet been done with the view of draining the large waterlogged coal area in South-West Durham; and whether the Commission for the Special Areas and the

Durham County Council or the South-West Durham Improvement Association have any scheme to deal with the situation at an early date?

Mr. E. Brown: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

ISLINGTON.

Mr. Cluse: asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons registered as unemployed in the area covered by the Islington Employment Exchanges for the years 1931 to 1938.

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following table shows the numbers of insured persons, aged 16–64 (exclusive of persons within the agricultural scheme) recorded as unemployed at Holloway and King's Cross Employment Exchanges at a date in April in each of the years 1931 to 1938:—


Date.
Holloway Employment Exchange.
King's Cross Employment Exchange.


27th April, 1931
…
8,575
10,131


25th April, 1932
…
10,301
11,151


24th April, 1933
…
9,988
11,569


23rd April, 1934
…
6,789
8,853


15th April, 1935
…
6,666
8,000


27th April, 1936
…
5,926
7,485


19th April, 1937
…
5,194
6,112


4th April, 1938
…
6,987
7,411

EXCHANGE, LEIGH.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Leigh and district employment committee have recommended to the divisional controller the need of a shelter and lavatory accommodation at Leigh Employment Exchange, and will he have inquiries made to see that this is carried out?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of these representations and am looking into the position but the technical difficulties, particularly in regard to the provision of shelters, are considerable.

Mr. Tinker: I hope that the Minister will follow this up. I have seen this place and know how necessary it is to provide this accommodation.

TRAINEES.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that young men from Scotland, who were given a complete course in training for building and plastering work, were afterwards refused benefit for six weeks for refusing work as casual ice-cream vendors in the Croydon area; and whether he will take steps in future, as far as possible, to see that men who receive a course of training are given every opportunity to get employment in the industry for which they have been trained and not diverted into casual unskilled seasonal work.

Mr. E. Brown: I can trace no case such as is described in the first part of the question. The practice of the Department is already as suggested in the second part of the question. In the great majority of cases no difficulty arises and in the few cases in which men after completing training are not placed at once, their names are kept on a separate register in order that special efforts may be made to place them in the occupation for which they have been trained.

Mr. Stephen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I gave him a case and received an answer from him?

Mr. Brown: I agree, and if the hon. Member will talk to me about it, he will find that everything possible is being done.

FOLLAND AIRCRAFT, LIMITED, HAMBLE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Folland Aircraft, Limited, of Hamble, are advertising in the Press for workers of all sorts and inviting them to make application in person; that numerous persons have responded to this advertisement from all parts of the country, and on arrival have been informed that there is no work available at present but that orders are expected in six weeks time; and what steps he is taking to prevent such undesirable practices, which compel men who are unemployed to spend money needlessly and keep them from seeking employment in places where it is genuinely to be found?

Mr. E. Brown: The facts as stated by the hon. Member have not previously been brought to my notice and I am making inquiries in the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: If as a result of the inquiry the Minister finds that this is exactly what is happening, will he lay it down that such employers must pay the expenses of the unemployed for bringing them from their homes?

Mr. Brown: That is a hypothetical question.

GERMAN NATIONALS (EMPLOYMENT PERMITS).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of German workers who have been granted permits by his Department for the purpose of employment in this country for the 12 months ended at the last convenient date; and whether there are any special regulations governing the time for which such permits are granted?

Mr. E. Brown: The number of permits issued during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1938, for the employment of German nationals was 2,995. Permits are granted for varying periods, not exceeding 12 months in the first instance, according to the nature and merits of the application in each case.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these permits have been extended?

Mr. Brown: Not without notice.

Mr. Ede: Do they include the people formerly of Austrian nationality?

Mr. Brown: No, I think not. They cover only the period up to 30th April.

Mr. Mander: Do they include the Gestapo agents?

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he can now make a statement on the Departmental Committee's report on certain questions arising under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and what action it is proposed to take on the conclusions and recommendations made in the report;
(2) what action it is proposed to take to deal with the question of miners' nystagmus; has he given consideration to the Departmental Committee's report; and, if so, what steps is it proposed to take to carry out the recommendations of the Committee?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am afraid I am not yet in. a position to make any further statement on the subject.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when a statement can be made, in view of the seriousness of this matter?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot add to my statement. There seems no prospect of time being available this Session for legislation of this kind.

Mr. T. Smith: Does that mean that during the lifetime of this Parliament we shall get some legislation on this matter?

Sir S. Hoare: I should not like to be drawn into giving an answer so far ahead.

An Hon. Member: Does it means that we shall not get anything this Session?

Sir S. Hoare: I have said that as far as I can see there is no time this Session.

Mr. Thorne: Does it mean that the life of this Parliament will run its full term?

Sir S. Hoare: Certainly.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Home Secretary the number of cases of silicosis receiving compensation under workmen's compensation for the year ended 1937, and the number in the Lancashire coalfield for the same period?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am afraid the figures asked for are not available, but it may assist the hon. Member to know that in 1937 the Silicosis Medical Board granted 286 disablement certificates to persons employed in coal mines of whom eight had been last employed in Lancashire collieries.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Home Secretary the total amount paid in workmen's compensation, premiums and charges, and expenses for the year 1936?

Sir S. Hoare: The amount is roughly estimated at about £12,500,000.

Mr. Taylor: As the total amount paid in compensation is £8,000,000, does not that fact convey to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the need of a new compensation Act, so that the injured workmen may have justice, fair play and a higher rate of compensation?

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member's supplementary question raises a very wide issue, and I do not think that I can deal with it in answer to a question.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this issue is so wide the indignation throughout the country is commensurate, and as the right hon. Gentleman has no time to tell us how he can bring greater benefits of compensation, does not that point to the fact that his time is so taken up with air-raid precautions that this should be the work of a separate Department?

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Logan: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is satisfied that the air-raid precautions scheme of putting the population in groups of 50, in basements or sub-basements of old buildings in Liverpool, is a proper method, in view of the fact that if hit from the air not one of these buildings would stand;
(2) whether, as there is not one building in England the basement or sub-basement of which, whilst considered suitable for protection against blast, gas, splinters, etc., is capable of withstanding the effects of a direct hit by a 500 lb. bomb, he will ensure that before buildings are allowed to be used as air-raid shelters they are rendered proof against such a direct hit?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has advised local authorities in selecting basements for public air-raid shelters to secure not only that premises are selected which give reasonable lateral protection against blast and splinters but that the roofs are so strengthened as to carry the weight of the debris if the buildings above are brought down. Such shelters, although not necessarily proof against a direct hit, can afford a substantial degree of protection; but in accordance with the Government's general policy of dispersal it is considered that so far as practicable they should not ordinarily accommodate more than 50 people. No scheme for the provision of public air-raid shelters has been submitted by the Liverpool City Council, but when a scheme is received it will be considered for grant on these lines.

Mr. Logan: Is it not possible for a city like Liverpool, in view of the unemployment there, to suggest that we should


have subterranean air shelters, which can be used as garages?

Mr. Lloyd: We must wait to see what proposals are put forward.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether any agreement has been made with the Metropolitan Water Board in connection with the air-raid precautions; and what are the terms of agreement?

Mr. Lloyd: The basis of the grant to the Metropolitan Water Board for air-raid precautions has already been discussed with the board, but at their request a further meeting has been fixed for to-day. The nature of the agreement with the board must depend upon the result of that meeting.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has reconsidered the possibility of establishing an anti-gas school in Scotland, in view of the difficulty of persuading persons to travel to Yorkshire, the nearest school, for such instruction?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): As indicated in the reply given to a question by my hon. Friend on 14th April, it is not considered necessary to establish further gas schools on the lines of those already in existence. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a revised edition of the Air-Raid Precautions Memorandum dealing with Anti-Gas Training which has recently been issued and which contains particulars of? special scheme for the training of local anti-gas instructors which has been inaugurated to afford further facilities for giving training in anti-gas measures.

MOTORING OFFENCES (CORONERS' INQUIRIES).

Mr. Watkins: asked the Home Secretary the number of cases during 1937 in which police proceedings were taken and convictions secured of motorists who had been previously exonerated from blame at coroners' inquests; and whether he will issue an instruction, in accordance with the Departmental Committee's report, that coroners' inquiries should be limited to ascertaining the cause of death and not deal with questions of civil or criminal liability?

Sir S. Hoare: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the second part, legislation would be required to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee and I have no power to issue any instructions in the matter.

SWEEPSTAKES AND LOTTERIES.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee to examine the existing law in relation to sweepstakes, lotteries, and various forms of betting including pools?

Sir S. Hoare: These questions were exhaustively considered by the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting, which reported as recently as 1933, and I do not think that anything would be gained by holding any further inquiry at the present time.

Mr. Day: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the state of the law is chaotic at the present time?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. That would be too wide a generalisation to place upon the position.

Mr. Day: If representations are made by all sections of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up a committee?

Captain Heilgers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the racing world is quite satisfied with the existing state of affairs?

Mr. George Griffiths: Even after yesterday?

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

SECTION HOUSE, PUTNEY.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether there was a maintenance. clause in the contracts for the new section house for unmarried police officers at Putney; what is the period or periods for maintenance and when do they expire for each contract; and what is the area, in acres, of the land on which the section house is built and which is estimated by his Department to be valued at £500?

Sir S. Hoare: The contracts contained maintenance clauses: for three months in the case of structural steelwork, ex-


piring on 10th July, 1936, and for 12 months in the cases of the substructure, superstructure, engineering services and lift contracts, expiring on 1st July, 1937, 22nd, 31st and 20th January, 1939, respectively. The area of the land on which the section house is built is just under half an acre.

POLICE COLLEGE (CANDIDATES' QUALIFICATIONS).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary how many junior station inspectors and station inspectors have represented the Metropolitan Police in some form of sport before being appointed to the Police College; and whether out standing ability at games is considered an added qualification for applicants to join the Police College?

Sir S. Hoare: I regret I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, in assessing the suitability of candidates for the college an attempt is made to form an all-round judgment of their character,. and one of the many elements taken into consideration is any evidence of their leadership and physical proficiency.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SERVICE DISPLAYS (SCHOLARS' ATTENDANCE).

Captain Plugge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the names of those education authorities who refuse to allow their children to attend service displays of any sort?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The Board have no record of the names of such authorities.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BUILDINGS (GRANT).

Major Whiteley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Bucks County Council on 12th May, urging an extension of the period during which the special grant of 50 per cent. will be made towards the cost of the provision of buildings for elementary schools beyond the date now fixed, 31st December, 1940; whether similar representations have been made by other bodies; and what action it is proposed to take?

Mr. Lindsay: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In view of the fact that the Education Act, 1936, provides for the raising of the school age on 1st September, 1939, my Noble Friend considers that an extension beyond the end of 1940 of the period of currency of the special grant of 50 per cent. would be inappropriate.

Major Whiteley: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this limitation is forcing local authorities to incur heavy expenditure at a time when both local and national expenditure is going up, and that that expenditure could quite easily be spread over a rather longer period, without any educational disadvantages?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that, but, as my answer indicates, the currency of the special rate of grant is clearly related to the date of the raising of the school age.

Major Whiteley: Is the hon. Member aware that this tends to lead to concentration on buildings for elementary purposes, at the expense of buildings badly needed in some cases for secondary and technical purposes?

VOLUNTARY SENIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many appeals under Section 18 (1) of the Education Act, 1921, have been received against proposed non-provided senior elementary schools to be erected in England and Wales under the provisions of the Education Act, 1936; in how many of these have public inquiries been held; in how many have decisions been given already by the Board of Education; in how many decided cases have the appeals been rejected; in how many cases have decisions been given without holding a public inquiry; and whether it is intended to accelerate the holding of public inquiries in order to ensure the required accommodation for senior scholars at the appointed day?

Mr. Lindsay: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 30th May to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), copies of which I am sending him.

Sir P. Harris: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that no needless delay is taking place in finding the necessary accommodation to be ready by the appointed day for senior schools?

Mr. Lindsay: I do not know that any delay has taken place at the Board.

REORGANISATION.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what progress is being made with the reorganisation of primary education in England and Wales; how many local education authorities have submitted schemes; how many have completed such schemes; and what number of local education authorities have not submitted schemes at all?

Mr. Lindsay: Every local education authority in England and Wales, except the Isles of Scilly, where conditions are exceptional, has submitted a scheme of some kind, but only about 40 authorities

Table showing (a) the numbers of public elementary school departments which on 31st March, 1937, were organized on the lines recommended in the Hadow report, and (b) the numbers of children in them.


ENGLAND AND WALES.


Public elementary schools maintained by local education authorities.


—
Senior Departments.
Percentage of Column 3 to total number of pupils aged 11 and over. (4)
Junior Departments.
All-age Departments with Senior Divisions.*
Percentage of the total of Columns 3, 7 and 9 to total number of Pupils aged 11 and over.


Number.
Number of pupils aged 11 and over.
Number.
Number of pupils aged 8 and under 12.
Number of pupils aged 11 and over.
Number.
Number of pupils aged 11 and over.


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)


March, 1937.
2,962
805,335
45·9
6,937
998,979
133,025
1,400
140,562
61.5


*These figures are based upon the statements of Head Teachers on the Annual Return on Form 9 E.

SIZE OF CLASSES.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many classes in the elementary schools of England and Wales have classes of from 40 to 50 children on the roll, and how many of 50 and upwards on the roll?

Mr. Lindsay: On 31st March, 1937, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 43,547 classes in public elementary schools with over 40 but not

can be regarded as having completed reorganisation in their areas. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement setting out the position on 31st March, 1937.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. Member ask his superior at the Board of Education whether it is not desirable to circularise the authorities, drawing their attention to the necessity for this, in view of the consultative committee's anticipated report on the senior schools?

Mr. Lindsay: I think it is perfectly well known to every local authority that it is desirable that they should go ahead with their plans for reorganisation as quickly as possible.

Mr. Leach: Will the reply include the names of those 40 authorities that have a clean bill of health?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir. I think that is so.

Following is the statement:

over 50 children on the registers, and 2,647 classes with over 50 children.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. Member submit to the President of the Board of Education a request that these figures should be again looked into with a view of absorbing unemployed teachers who might be employed if these classes were reduced in size?

Mr. Lindsay: I have said before that this is not a new issue. We are proceeding as fast as possible with reorganisation with a view to reducing the size of


classes and, secondly, the decline in the school population is going to settle this matter automatically in the next few years.

Mr. Mabane: May I ask whether the figures in this respect show a progressive improvement on 1931?

Mr. Lindsay: They show a progressive improvement since 1931, as one would expect.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Is the President proposing to issue a special order to local education authorities which have classes over 50, of whom there are over 2,000?

Mr. Lindsay: Special pressure is being brought to bear, I might almost say, every month on these local authorities by speeches and letters. We know precisely where they are, and we are adopting three or four different methods of dealing with them.

NATIONAL PARKS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to make any statement with regard to the policy of the Government for setting up a national parks authority, as recommended by the Royal Commission in 1931?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter.

Mr. Mander: In view of the delay of seven years and the tremendous public interest taken in this question, will the right hon. Gentleman pot indicate whether a decision is likely to be taken at an early date?

Mr. Elliot: I have just taken over the examination of this problem. I hope it will not take too long.

Mr. Mander: If I put down a question in three weeks' time will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give me an answer?

Mr. James Griffiths: Does not this indicate that progress has stopped since 1931?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL GRANT).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Health the circumstances in which the

St. Paul's Hospital lost its grant of £8,000 from the London County Council, leading to its having to close down several wards; and why no public inquiry was held into the events which led to this action being taken?

Mr. Elliot: The grant referred to. was payable by the London County Council to the St. Paul's Hospital in pursuance of arrangements made annually between the county- council and the hospital for the diagnosis and treatment of venereal diseases. I am informed that in reviewing their venereal diseases scheme for the year 1937–38 the county council decided that it was no longer necessary to continue the arrangements with St. Paul's Hospital. The discontinuance or renewal of such arrangements is a matter within the discretion of the county council.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware of the scandals of one kind and another which have appeared in the public Press; the libel cases which have been going on? Will he not consider taking some action to bring about a better condition of affairs?

Mr. Elliot: This is a matter within the discretion of the county council and I do not think it would be advisable for the Ministry to interfere.

VENEREAL DISEASE CLINICS, LONDON.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the monetary grants made to venereal-disease clinics in the London area are made in proportion to the total individual attendances in the course of a year instead of to the number of patients treated; and, as this is calculated to lead to over-treatment, which in these diseases can be almost as dangerous as no treatment, will he take steps to see that the basis of the grants is altered?

Mr. Elliott: No, Sir. I am informed by the London County Council, by whom the payments are made, that the number of attendances is only one of many factors taken into consideration in determining the amounts of the payments. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of attendances is taken as a means of determining the grant, and that as a consequence there have been many complaints about patients


having to go there quite unnecessarily in order to make up the attendances necessary to qualify for the grant?

Mr. Elliot: It is only one of the factors which are taken into account.

RHEUMATISM.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that high opinion in the medical profession holds that rheumatism, directly costing the nation £20,000,000 each year and being responsible for 1,000,000 workers each year losing five and a-half weeks' employment, cannot be satisfactorily dealt with under the voluntary hospitals system; and whether he is prepared, by means of State action, to extend the number of national hospitals specialising in rheumatic diseases or to initiate some other national scheme, in view of the fact that rheumatism is also a main factor in the cause of heart disease, which is responsible for more than one-third of the national death rate?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question of 3rd May last, to which I am afraid I cannot add at present.

Mr. Adams: Arising out of the answer, which was highly unsatisfactory, are we to understand that the Government intend to take no additional action to deal with this very prevalent disease, which is responsible for a substantial percentage of the national death rate?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that the hon. Member does not recollect the terms of the answer given as recently as 3rd May. It was pointed out that the facilities for the treatment of this acute disease were provided by means of the general hospitals and a number of specialised institutions, and that local authorities were increasing the medical provision for the treatment of rheumatism in children.

Mr. McEntee: Is it not a fact that in many areas no provision is made by the local authority, and will he suggest to them that they should bring themselves up to the standard of the better authorities?

Mr. Elliot: This is a matter of local administration. I agree always that all local authorities should follow the lead of the more progressive in this respect.

Mr. Maxton: Is not the basic trouble that there is a complete lack of knowledge as to this disease?

Mr. Elliot: I agree that there is a lack of knowledge regarding this disease in some cases, but we have a certain amount of knowledge of some aspects of it.

REGIONAL COUNCIL, SOUTH LANCASHIRE.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the proposal for a regional council for South Lancashire for the districts around Manchester; and whether he is keeping in close touch with the proposal and has arranged for a representative to attend?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that this project is under discussion locally and I shall watch developments with interest.

Mr. Chorlton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the setting up of a regional council for this district, to carry out common needs and services in the locality, would be a great saving?

Mr. Elliot: I think it would be a great advantage if these proposals were carried out, and I am keeping closely in touch with the matter.

COMPANY DIRECTORS (GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. Stephen: asked the Prime Minister whether any principles have been laid down by the Government for the guidance of directors who have been appointed by the Government to serve on boards of private companies or quasi public utility companies; and whether the Government receive private reports as to their activities upon such boards?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No general principles have been laid down for the guidance of Government directors, but they receive instructions as to the particular interests of the Government to be represented in connection with the company concerned and report to the Government on such matters as are of concern to it.

Mr. Stephen: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the appointment of these Government directors is having any satisfactory result, or is giving the Government any control over them?

The Prime Minister: I do not think the appointment of Government directors is intended to exercise general control over the companies, but is intended that they should have an opportunity of expressing Government views on matters which are of interest to the Government.

Mr. Boothby: Is there anything to prevent the Government asking the Government directors on these companies to make confidential reports to the Government on certain matters of interest to the Government from time to time?

The Prime Minister: Government directors do keep in touch with the Government and report to them from time to time.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: When exclusive subsidies are paid, is there any way in which the House can be informed of the activities of Government directors?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the remuneration received by directors nominated or appointed by His Majesty's Government on the Suez Canal Company, Limited; Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, Limited; Imperial Airways, Limited; British Airways, Limited; Park-end Saw Mills, Limited; British Sugar Corporation, Limited; Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Limited; Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation, Limited; and David MacBrayne (1928), Limited?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): The Government directors of the companies in question receive no remuneration from public funds in respect of their services as such. In general, any remuneration paid by the companies to the Government directors, like that paid to other directors, is determined by the company. In the case of the British Sugar Corporation, the Articles of Association provide that the remuneration of the chairman shall be determined by the Minister of Agriculture, with the approval of the Treasury, and that the remuneration of the other directors shall be £500 per annum, but that the company may vote extra remuneration to the board.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend consider that the whole position wants to be put on to a concrete and clear basis, and does he not realise that we want to know what it is that they get as a reward for safeguarding the public, and that we do not gather what reward they get for doing that? I am making no aspersions and no innuendoes, but I would like to know that.

Captain Wallace: I am sorry that my hon. Friend considers the whole position so unsatisfactory.

LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether the Morgan rotary furnace process for low-temperature carbonization has been tested by the Fuel Research Department, and, if so, has any report of the experiments been issued?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. The report will be published to-morrow, 3rd June.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FACTORIES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to enable municipal corporations to erect fatories for renting purposes?

Mr. Elliot: I can hold out no prospect of introducing such legislation.

Mr. Mander: As there is a widespread demand from municipal corporations for these powers, will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter further consideration?

Mr. Elliot: I will listen to any representations made by representative bodies of local authorities.

Mr. Macquisten: Is there not likely to be violent opposition on the part of the ratepayers?

Mr. Levy: Is it not the case that an enabling Bill was introduced and turned down by this House on this very subject?

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health the number of old age pensioners in January, 1938, and the number of those who, in addition, receive assistance from local authorities; and the percentage increase of the latter over January, 1937?

Mr. Elliot: On 1st January, 1938, 230,652 old age pensioners out of a total number of 2,296,908 were in receipt of poor relief, representing 10.04 per cent. The corresponding percentage on 1st January, 1937, was 9½7.

Mr. Tinker: Do not these figures create some alarm in the mind of the Government and give them to think that there should be more allowance than is given at the present time?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BRICKS (PRICES, DURHAM).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Health the prices charged for bricks used for house-building in the County of Durham; whether local brick-making firms have an opportunity of tendering for supplies; and whether he has any reason to believe that local firms are being prevented from sharing in the business owing to the low price of imported bricks and uneconomic rail charges?

Mr. Elliot: The following are recent quotations for bricks obtained by a local authority in the county to which the hon. Member refers:

Common Bricks—

Local: 54s. 6d. per thousand and 55s. per thousand. Non-Local: 57s. per thousand.

Facing Bricks:

Local: 62s. 6d. per thousand and 60s. per thousand.

Non-Local: 59s. per thousand.

All prices delivered to site.

The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third part in the negative.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health how many of the 176,466 houses involved in slum clearance orders have been acquired and demolished by

local authorities; what has been the cost of acquiring these properties; how many owners are concerned and what is the total sum paid to them; and what is the net building area of the land acquired?

Mr. Elliot: Of the houses referred to 57,528 were to be demolished, after acquisition, by the local authorities and the remainder by the owners. By the end of 1937 about 104,000 of them had been demolished. The other particulars asked for by my hon. Friend are not available.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Have these properties been acquired on a market value based on rental income, and if not, on what basis have they been acquired?

Mrs. Tate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many areas local authorities are destroying houses, on the ground that they are unfit for habitation, which could, with the expenditure of a small sum, be made very desirable, and that this is causing intense suffering to very humble people who have no other means at their disposal?

Mr. Elliot: With regard to the first supplementary question, I am afraid I must ask my hon. Friend to put it on the Paper, and with regard to the second, the House recently passed provisions by means of which reconditioning grants could be given. I hope that advantage will be taken of those provisions.

Mrs. Tate: Will my right hon. Friend notify the local authorities and urge upon them the desirability of using these reconditioning powers more frequently?

Mr. McGovern: Is it not the old story of the poor widow who has lost her rent?

WALLSEND.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Health (1) what is the position with regard to the provision of houses urgently required in Wallsend and Willington Quay under the slum clearance programme;
(2) what progress has been made with the housing programme entrusted by the Wallsend Council to the North-Eastern Housing Association; and what streets are being dealt with?

Mr. Elliot: The Wallsend-on-Tyne Town Council have completed 537 houses in connection with their slum clearance programme. Approval has been given to the erection of 264 further houses by the


North-Eastern Housing Association on be-half of the council and I understand that work on the erection of these houses has been started. A scheme for the erection of an additional 142 houses by the association is in course of preparation, and it is expected that definite proposals will be submitted to the Commissioner for the Special Areas within a few weeks. I am informed that these houses will complete the council's slum clearance programme. No information is yet available in my Department as to the names of the streets in which unfit houses are to be dealt with by the council.

Miss Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, can he say whether these houses in the slum clearance programme will be completed by the end of this year?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I cannot say that.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend ask his Department?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think my Department can say it either.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the Wallsend Council is making provision for the aged and single people in their slum-clearance programme?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that 129 small dwellings suitable for occupation by aged couples have been erected by the council in connection with their slum clearance programme and that a further number of similar dwellings are to be erected on the council's behalf by the North-Eastern Housing Association. I do not know at present what number of houses will be provided by the council for single persons.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (TEST WORK).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give particulars of the manner in which test work is now imposed in the various Poor Law institutions?

Mr. Elliot: since 1st April, 1937, the second appointed day under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, local authorities have been relieved of the great

majority of the able-bodied unemployed and the numbers set to work by local authorities are now comparatively small. In order to give the information asked for by the hon. Member it would be necessary for me to ask for a special return, and in the changing circumstances I do not think that this would be justified.

Mr. Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the local authorities to follow the very good example of the London County Council in this matter?

Mr. Elliot: The London County Council still has three institutions in which people are set to work.

RIMROSE BROOK DRAINAGE SCHEME.

Mr. Errington: asked the Minister of Health (1) why the public inquiry in regard to the Rimrose Brook scheme to prevent flooding in Bootle and Litherland was not held in January of this year as was anticipated; and when will it be held;
(2)" whether he is aware that renewed serious flooding has occurred in Bootle and Litherland; and whether he is prepared to take steps to prevent this;
(3) who are the authorities concerned in the discussions in regard to the Rimrose Brook scheme to prevent flooding in Bootle and Litherland, and whether agreement to the scheme has been reached; and why no action has been taken?

Mr. Elliot: The scheme is not yet before me, the plans having had to be altered for reasons which my predecessor gave in his reply of 7th April to my hon. Friend. I understand that agreement has been reached between the authorities promoting the scheme, and that as soon as the various statutory preliminaries have been carried out the scheme will be submitted to me, and I will then direct a local inquiry. The authorities concerned are the Lancaster County Council, the Bootle County Borough Council, the Crosby Borough Council, the Litherland Urban District Council and the West Lancashire Rural District Council. I have been informed of a recent recurrence of flooding during a period of heavy rain and high tide. As my hon. Friend is aware the prevention of flooding is one of the objects of the scheme.

Mr. Errington: Does the Minister realise that this matter has been under consideration for three years, that in one case a death was caused through this flooding, and that each year there is a recrudescence of the flooding, to the great discomfort of the people in the neighbourhood?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir, that is why I am so glad that agreement has been reached. I hope the scheme will go through.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three years ago a young man was drowned in 10 feet of water in that neighbourhood, and that for three years running the water has been from 8 to 10 feet high in that street, and is it not a public scandal that that should happen just outside the city of Liverpool?

Mr. Elliot: That is why I say that it is very desirable that the local authorities concerned should come to an agreement.

RIVER THAMES (FLOODING).

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in April, 1931, his Departmental Committee was appointed to inquire into the circumstances of possible flooding of the River Thames and that this committee reported its deliberations and recommendations in 1933; what these recommendations were; and whether any have been implemented?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. The principal recommendation was that a Joint Committee should be set up to survey the problem and to formulate and control generally the action necessary for flood prevention in the tidal basin of the river. Other recommendations dealt with the machinery for the purpose, including amendments of the existing law; it was suggested, also, that the Government should bear the cost of an investigation into North Sea surges. The recommendations, however, were not generally acceptable to the authorities concerned and have not been implemented.

PENSIONS.

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Health whether he will inquire into the circumstances attending the fact that Mrs. Catherine A. Foster, 27, Shaftesbury

Buildings, Oxford Road, Stratford, S.E.15, was granted a pension, No. 21,551,259, dating from 22nd March; and why the arrears due have not been paid?

Mr. Elliot: While Mrs. Foster's claim was being investigated notification was received from the local authority that they proposed to claim from arrears of pension recovery of excess outdoor relief granted to her while the claim was under consideration. Details of the authority's claim were received on 25th May and the balance of the arrears, amounting to £4 10s., has been paid to the pensioner.

Mr. Groves: Has that balance been paid since the question was put down?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, the balance has been paid.

Mr. Groves: since the question was put down?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I cannot say.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the committee appointed to inquire into the position of unmarried women in relation to pensions will take into account the unmarried woman who has not been a contributor under the Contributory Pensions Acts, but whose circumstances are, in certain cases, even worse than those of spinsters who have had opportunities of contributing?

Captain Wallace: The exact scope of the inquiry into spinsters' pensions is a matter for the committee themselves to determine, but it would appear that the point raised in the question would not be outside their terms of reference.

Mr. Mathers: Will the Minister bring his answer to the notice of the committee in order that the inquiry may be a full one, for if the case of these unmarried women is not considered it can only be a partial inquiry?

Captain Wallace: I do not think I can say any more than that the question is one for the committee. No doubt they will take note of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister also ask them to consider a higher pension than is paid at the present time?

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the increasing adverse balance of trade against Great Britain and the present favourable balance of trade accruing to the United States indicates that the current rate of exchange over-values sterling in relation to the dollar, he will undertake to consider the present disparity in the terms of trade between the two countries when determining the rate of exchange through the Exchange Equalisation Account?

Captain Wallace: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that it is the function of the Exchange Equalisation Account to determine the exchange value of sterling. As stated in my right hon. Friend's answer to him on 8th February last, its purpose is to check undue fluctuations therein in accordance with Section 24 (3) of the Finance Act, 1932.

Mr. Mabane: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the growing feeling among industrialists that the present difficulties of trade are due to the fact that the £ is over-valued in the markets of the world?

CLUBS LEGISLATION (BOTTLE PARTIES).

Major Procter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the excise authorities have recently considered whether the organisers of bottle parties should be liable to excise payments on the same lines as other purveyors of alcohol; and, if not, whether he will arrange for this matter to be reviewed at an early date, in view of the increasing tendency to sell alcohol through this channel instead of through the medium of properly licensed establishments?

Captain Wallace: I would refer to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans).

Mr. McEntee: What is a bottle party?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COMMODITY PRICES.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view

of the fact that commodity prices in February and March, 1937, were at an artificial and exaggerated level, the Government has abandoned its frequently declared policy of persisting in furthering the rise of wholesale prices until there is evidence that equilibrium has been re-established?

Captain Wallace: No, Sir.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the effects of the prevailing deflation throughout the British Empire; and whether His Majesty's Government will take consultation with the Federal Government of the United States, with a view to enlisting their co-operation in joint action designed to check the progressive weakening of the economic strength of the democratic countries by restoring world commodity prices to a remunerative level?

Captain Wallace: My right hon. Friend regrets the recent fall of certain commodity prices, but this is in no way due to any deflationary action in this country. The policy of His Majesty's Government, as has been frequently stated in this House, is to remove so far as lies in their power all obstacles which tend to depress commodity prices below a remunerative level, and to seek the widest possible measure of agreement, as in the case of our present negotiations with the United States of America, for the removal of the barriers to international trade which are the main obstacles to economic recovery. There is no reason to suppose that the general objectives of the Government of the United States of America in this respect are not in accord with our own, and my right hon. Friend is not clear as to what precise action my hon. Friend has in mind

Mr. Leach: Why do the Government regret a fall in prices of any of the necessities of life?

Captain Wallace: Because we believe that if you have the price of basic necessities so low that it does not provide a living to the producer, you are starting on a vicious spiral.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the depression in commodity prices is attributable to a fall in demand, and how does he propose to correct that?

Captain Wallace: I am afraid we cannot properly discuss the general economic policy of the Government by question and answer.

EIRE CATTLE (IMPORTS).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many store cattle were imported from Ireland on which duty was paid between 1st January and the commencement of the recent agreement, and the average duty per cwt. paid?

Captain Wallace: As the answer involves a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this duty was paid by the Government of Southern Ireland or was it paid by British farmers?

Captain Wallace: I am afraid that that is a different question.

Following is the answer:

The revenue accounts do not distinguish store cattle as such. The number of cattle classified as "other than fat— for food," and of calves, imported from Eire and duty paid at each tariff rating from 1st January, 1938, to 30th April, 1938, the latest date to which information is available, was as follows:


Description.
Rate of duty.
Number.


Live cattle:




(a) Under six months old.
£1 per head.
372


(b) 6 months old but under 15 months old.
2per head.
59,104


(c) 15 months old but under 2 years old.
£3 per head.
45,531


(d) 2 years old and upwards, not being cattle known as mincers.
£4 5s. 0d. per head.
24,982


(e) 2 years old and upwards, being cattle known as mincers.
£1 per head.
5,793


Duties at the maximum of 100 per cent, ad valorem.
100 per cent, ad valorem.
64

I regret that it is not possible to give the average duty per cwt., as the weight of cattle is not recorded.

SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether

he is aware that the present assistance given to Cuba in respect of her sugar exports to the United States is equivalent to £6 5s. per ton as opposed to £4 15s. per ton, which is the value of the United Kingdom preference given to sugar imported from the West Indies; and whether, in view of the present low world price of sugar, attention can be given to the accordance of further preference to British colonial sugar;
(2) whether he is aware that during the past three years Cuba has received an average price of £11 5s. per ton for 65 per cent. of her sugar production sold in the United States, and that the preferential assistance involved is equivalent to over £3 per head of the population of Cuba, whereas the United Kingdom preference concession to Jamaican sugar is equivalent to only 7s. 3d. per head of the population of Jamaica; and whether arrangements can be made for some further assistance to Jamaican sugar producers in view of the current low world price of sugar?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): In determining the rate of preference to be granted to British Colonial sugar the Government have not been guided by what may be the position in other countries, but by consideration of the interests both of producers in the Colonies and of consumers here. I think that the existing preference is not ungenerous. With regard to the possibility of further steps to assist sugar producers, I would refer my hon. Friend to answers which I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) yesterday.

TIN CONTROL.

Mr. Macquisten: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will arrange for a revision of the standard tonnages under the tin control scheme; and whether he will give effect to the unanimous vote of the Malayan producers taken at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, on 13th April, to ask the High Commissioner to forward a petition to the Colonial Office in favour of such revision?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Malayan delegation are submitting Malaya's claim for a revision of the standard tonnages at to- day's meeting of the International Tin Committee in Paris. As the standard


tonnages were fixed by international agreement for five years from 1st January, 1937, no revision can be effected except by agreement between all the parties to the agreement.

Mr. Macquisten: Are not the standard tonnages very unfair to Malaya? She has a quota of only about 50 per cent., while all the foreign countries are able to get quotas bigger than they can fill.

Mr. MacDonald: As I say, the case of Malaya is being presented by the Malaya delegation to the International Tin Committee in Paris to-day.

Mr. Macquisten: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will arrange for the holding of an inquiry into the facts which brought about the creation of tin industry pools after the inception of restriction in 1931, and include in such inquiry all unofficial pools, and investigate the working of all such pools and their effect on the producers and the consumers before he consents to the creation of another buffer pool?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir. I do not think that such an inquiry is necessary. The tin producers in Malaya have voted in favour of a buffer pool by a majority of approximately two to one. The other British Dependency concerned, namely, Nigeria, is in favour of a buffer pool. In the circumstances I have decided that the principle of a buffer pool may be accepted so far as Malaya and Nigeria are concerned, if agreement on a satisfactory detailed scheme is reached by the International Tin Committee.

Mr. Macquisten: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Lord Runciman, when he was President of the Board of Trade practically promised an inquiry? Is he also aware that the scheme for a buffer pool was started by a certain gentleman who had 8,000 tons of tin to dispose of and planted his inconveniently large holding on to the first buffer pool; that he is the same gentleman who was concerned with the pepper and shellac scandal and afterwards was brought to book therefor; and that the private pools rode on the back of the official pool with inside knowledge of its operations?

CUSTOMS FORMALITIES (FOREIGN VISITORS).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take steps to put an end to the irritating formalities of customs authorities which tend to give unpleasant impressions to foreign visitors?

Captain Wallace: I understand that the hon. Member has in mind an individual complaint which has appeared in the Press. I am having inquiries made and will communicate the result to him when they are completed.

Mr. E. Smith: Is it not a fact that whatever irritations there are in connection with the customs here, they are nothing to what British visitors have to put up with when visiting foreign countries?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

Milk.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, during the month of April, over 30,000,000 gallons of milk, forming approximately 40 per cent, of the total sales for the month, went to the factories at a price of 6.53d. per gallon; and whether he is prepared to take such steps as may be necessary to make as much as may be required of any such future surplus available for necessitous cases at 2d. per pint?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 5th May to the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley).

Mutton and Lamb.M

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now give effect to the principle underlying the Ottawa Agreement that a first place should be given to the home producer in his home market and thus make room and ensure fair prices for the increased home production of mutton and lamb?

Mr. Ramsbotham: As my right hon. Friend has already announced, consultations with regard to the quantities of mutton and lamb to be imported in the


current year are proceeding with representatives of Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and of New Zealand, from which countries over 80 per cent, of our imports of this class of meat are received. In these consultations the principle to which my hon. Friend refers is being fully borne in mind.

Mr. Turton: While these consultations are proceeding will my hon. Friend secure that the imports of mutton and lamb are not increased?

Mr. Ramsbotham: All the relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the whole matter heart-breaking?

LAND SURVEY.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the more or less derelict condition of millions of acres of land, officially classed as permanent pasture, he will institute a national survey as suggested by Professor Stapledon, of Aberystwith University, and Professor Engledow, of Cambridge University, and enlist the co-operation of county agricultural committees so that it may be begun forthwith, county by county, and speedily completed?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend has under consideration what additional inquiries or surveys could be undertaken with advantage, but he is doubtful whether a detailed survey of the particular kind indicated by my hon. Friend would justify the expense involved.

Sir P. Hurd: Is it possible to evolve an effective policy unless it is known how much of this land is capable of cultivation in time of emergency?

Mr. Ramsbotham: No doubt that is just the point my right hon. Friend has in mind in considering this matter.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a practical scheme was produced in 1931 and was embodied in the Land Utilisation Act?

DRAINAGE RATES, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among occupiers of land in the West and South Gloucestershire internal drainage areas about the incidence

of drainage rates, since the rateable values are too low in relation to the cost of the works which have to be undertaken; and whether he will consider how he can relieve the ratepayers, either by making Government grants to the internal drainage boards or by extending the rateable areas, thereby spreading the burden more equitably?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is aware that some dissatisfaction has been expressed with regard to the drainage rates levied by the West Gloucestershire Internal Drainage Board. My right hon. Friend does not think that there is any possibility of extending the boundaries of the internal drainage district as long as the principle of benefit embodied in Section 1 (5) of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, governs the delimitation of drainage districts other than catchment areas. I would remind the hop. Member, however, that Government grants are available to internal drainage boards under the provisions of Part III of the Agriculture Act, 1937, and that contributions can in certain circumstances be made to the expenses of an internal drainage board both by the catchment board and by any local authority, including the county council.

Mr. Price: Will the Minister consider specifically the case of the internal drainage areas of Gloucestershire under the Act referred to?

Mr. Ramsbotham: They will be considered; I think the Act is sufficiently elastic.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: Is my hon. Friend aware that this grant is given only when the work is done in the winter, and that it is impossible to do the work in the winter? Will he receive a deputation on the matter?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Yes, Sir.

IMPORTED EGGS.

Sir Adrian Baillie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the recent case in which a penalty of £5 was imposed for an offence involving the removal on a large scale of the country-of-origin marks on imported eggs and the sale of them in this country as English; whether he is satisfied that existing powers are adequate to protect producers of British eggs; and, if not, whether he will consider remedial action?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. Under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, the penalties for the removal of the indication of origin from imported eggs are £5 for the first offence and £20 for a second and subsequent offence, but prosecutions for this offence have been taken under the Larceny Act as a result of which the defendants have been committed to prison. On the information before him the existing powers appear to my right hon. Friend to be adequate to protect producers of British eggs.

Sir A. Baillie: Does my hon. Friend consider that the powers which local authorities possess for the inspection of premises in which these matters are carried on are adequate; and, if not, will he consider giving them extended powers?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The powers are quite adequate.

Mr. Macquisten: Is not this small fine of £5 for a gross fraud in striking contrast to the huge fines sometimes up to £100 for technical offences under the Marketing Boards?

Sir A. Baillie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the interests concerned with importing liquid Chinese eggs are now arranging to import this substance from Rumania, Jugoslavia, Hungary and Latvia; and whether, in these circumstances, he proposes to take additional measures to protect the British poultry industry and, if necessary, to organise the manufacture of British liquid eggs?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is aware that liquid eggs were imported into this country during March and April from Rumania, Jugoslavia and Hungary, but these supplies were more than offset by reduced shipments from China. In these circumstances there appears to be no reason for any special steps to be taken in the matter. As regards the last part of the question my right hon. Friend has no information which would lead him to suppose that special measures to encourage the production of liquid eggs in this country would be in the interest of the home poultry industry.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the importation of these eggs into this country has greatly increased of late years?

WAGES, EAST YORKSHIRE

Major Carver: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the difficulties caused by a recent decision of the Agricultural Wages Committee of East Yorkshire relating to overtime charges, which further increases farmers' costings; and, in view of the inability of the industry to meet these charges, will he be prepared to take action?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is aware that the representatives of farmers in the East Riding of Yorkshire have taken exception to a recent decision of the county agricultural wages committee in regard to the minimum rates of wages for certain agricultural workers. The fixation of such minimum rates has been entrusted by Parliament to the wages committee, on which employers and workers are equally represented, and my right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that all relevant considerations were not taken into account by the committee in arriving at their decision.

Mr. G. Griffiths: If the farmers think this decision is unsatisfactory, why do they not go on strike or lock themselves out?

SHEEP FARMING.

Major Carver: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make any further statement as to whether the Government are able to give assistance to sheep farmers in view of the continuing low prices of mutton, lamb, and wool?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply given on 30th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. de la Bère: What is the use of arresting progress in this matter?

COLORADO BEETLE.

Major Carver: asked the Minister of Agriculture the parts of Europe in which appearances of the Colorado beetle have just been recorded; and whether there is any record of its discovery in this country recently?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The latest information in my possession is that during 1937 three small outbreaks of the Colorado beetle were discovered for the first time


in the Netherlands and a larger number in Switzerland. No living specimen of the beetle has been found in this country since August, 1936.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

NORTHERN WATERS.

Mr. Windsor: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a pronouncement with regard to the Northern Waters (Restriction) Order so as to relieve the anxieties of those engaged in the industry?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 19th May to a question by Private Notice on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Kingston-upon-Hull (Mr. Law). The question whether the Order should continue to apply to the month of August is still under consideration and my right hon. Friend regrets that he is not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Windsor: If I put a question down in two or three weeks' time, will the Minister be able to give any information on this matter, as there is a good deal of urgency about it, particularly in Hull, Grimsby and ports of that kind?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the meantime this embargo is having a serious effect on fish fryers, and that representations are being made to hon. Members to see whether anything can be done?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I can assure the hon. Member that no time will be lost in making a statement.

Mr. Mander: Why was so little notice given to the people engaged in the industry? It was only a week, and caused great inconvenience.

STATISTICS.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total value of fish landed in the United Kingdom in 1937 direct from the fishing grounds by British fishing vessels; and the total value of fish imported from foreign countries and British countries, respectively, in the same year?

Mr. Ramsbotham: As the reply contains a number of figures I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply :

1 The total value of fish landed in the United Kingdom in 1937, direct from the fishing grounds by British fishing vessels, was as follows:

£


Wet fish
…
…
15,394,017


Shell fish
…
…
540,346


Total
…
…
£15,934,363

2 The total value of fish of all kinds imported in 1937 from (a) foreign countries, and (b) British countries was as follows:

£


(a) From foreign countries
8,606,930


(b) From British countries
1,770,771


Total
£10,377,701

These inclusive figures are made up as follow:

—
From Foreign Countries.
From British Countries.
Total.



£
£
£


Fresh or frozen fish.
2,633,341
632,518
3,26,5,859


Cured or salted fish (not canned).
250,585
47,060
297,655


Canned fish.
5,722,994
1,091,193
6,814,187



8,606,930
1,770,771
10,377,701

NOTE.—The figures of imports for 1937 are subject to revision.

DOGS (EXPORT).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture what special privilege is enjoyed by the owner of a dog which is about to be exported if such owner has secured a registration certificate from the Kennel Club?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Registration of a dog by the Kennel Club does not confer any special privilege in the matter of exportation from this country. My right hon. Friend is informed, however, that dogs registered by the Kennel Club may be imported for breeding purposes into the


United States by an American citizen without payment of the 15 per cent. ad valorem duty normally payable in respect of dogs imported into that country.

Mr. Williams: Can such a dog be imported into America for breeding purposes without the registration certificate referred to in the question?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us of whom the Kennel Club consists that it should enable a dog to be imported without payment of duty?

MARYPORT HARBOUR REPAIRS (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Cape (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about the future of Maryport Harbour?

Mr. E. Brown: The finances of the harbour at Maryport have suffered heavily as a result of trade depression and the harbour itself has been severely damaged by gales in recent years. The existing trade of the port has not enabled the Harbour Commissioners to finance the necessary repairs. The Commissioner for the Special Areas gave the Harbour Commissioners a grant in 1935 to enable the entrance to the port to be dredged, but subsequent gales have not only silted up the entrance to the harbour again but have destroyed some of the harbour works to an extent which, I understand, makes shipping chary of using the port. The Harbour Commissioners have appealed to the Commissioner for assistance to enable them to put their harbour in a state of efficiency. It is admitted that for many years the harbour has not been a paying proposition but the Harbour Commissioners claim that there are a number of industrial developments in North-West Cumberland which might well materialise if the harbour were reconditioned.
The Government and the Commissioner realise that, although in the circumstances as they are at present the case for the harbour is not a strong one on economic grounds, the closing of the harbour would be a serious matter and would involve further unemployment in Maryport and

the district around. The Commissioner, therefore, last year paid for a report by an eminent firm of consulting engineers in order to ascertain the approximate expenditure involved in putting the harbour into a state in which its continued use could be secured. This report has been under careful examination in recent months, and after consultation between the Commissioner, the Harbour Commissioners and the Consulting Engineers, it is considered that for an expenditure of not more than £75,000 essential repairs can be carried out and the harbour put into a state of efficiency which would enable it to remain open for a considerable period and would put the Harbour Commissioners in a position to assure the neighbouring colliery companies that, if further shafts are sunk, the resulting coal could be exported through the harbour.
In all the circumstances the Government have authorised the Commissioner to offer the Harbour Commissioners a sum not exceeding £75,000 to carry out these repairs. Of the actual expenditure one-third is to be by way of free grant and the balance by way of loan. The financial details of this offer are being communicated to the Harbour Commissioners to-day, and provided that they and the bondholders agree to the Commissioner's proposals, and are prepared to join in promoting the necessary Private Bill, the Commissioner is willing that the work should be put in hand at once.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister state the business of the House in the week after the Recess, and also what business it is proposed to take to-night?

The Prime Minister: Tuesday, 14th June: Supply; Committee [9th Allotted Day]. The Colonial Office Vote will be considered.
Wednesday, 15th June: Supply; Committee [10th Allotted Day]. The Board of Trade Vote will be considered with particular reference to the van Zeeland Report, International Trade and British Shipping.
I will announce the Business for Thursday, 16th June, to-morrow. The order of the business which we propose to take will depend upon the progress made to-day.
Friday, 17th June: Supply; Committee [nth Allotted Day] (1st part). The Ministry of Transport Vote will be considered.
As opportunity offers, progress will be made with other Orders.
In regard to to-night, we are suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule in order, after taking the Essential Commodities Reserves Bill, to obtain the Committee stage of the Herring Industry Bill, and we also propose to take the Import Duties Orders and the Cattle (Import Regulation) Revocation Order.

Mr. Attlee: Does the Prime Minister propose to take the Committee stage of

the Herring Bill if the Debate on the earlier Bill should be protracted? Is it intended to enter upon the Herring Bill at a late hour?

The Prime Minister: I have every hope that we shall reach the Herring Bill before a very late hour. We must see how we get on.

Motion made, and Question put,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 97.

Division No. 231.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Denville, Alfred
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Albery, Sir Irving
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
MaCorquodale, M. S.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Duggan, H. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dunglass, Lord
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Apsley, Lord
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.


Assheton, R.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Marsden, Commander A.


Beechman, N. A.
Emery, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitoham)


Bernays, R. H.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Errington, E.
Mills, Sir F. (Loyton, E.)


Blair, Sir R.
Everard, W. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Fleming, E. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morgan, R. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Furness, S. N.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Goldie, N. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Bull, B. B.
Granville, E. L.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Bullock. Capt. M.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
O'Connor, Sir Terance J.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Pilkington, R.


Cary, R. A.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H
Ramsbotham, H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harvey, Sir G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Channon, H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reid, W- Allan (Derby)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramer, J. R.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Higgs, W. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hopkinson, A.
Salmon, Sir I.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salt, E. W.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hulbert, N. J.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Conent, Captain R. J. E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Scott, Lord William


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Selley, H. R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Keeling, E. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Crooks, Sir J. S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cross, R. H.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lees-Jones, J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cruddas, Col. B,
Lennox-Boyd, A. T, L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Culverwell, C. T.
Levy, T.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lewis, O.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lindsay, K. M.
Spens, W. P.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lloyd, G. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


De la Bère, R.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife. E.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loftus, P. C.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)




Strauss, E. A. (Southwark. N.)
Turton, R. H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Stuart, Lord C. Criohton- (N'thw'h)
Wakefield, W. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Suetar, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Wise, A. R.


Tasker, Sir R. I.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Tate, Mavis C.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Titchfield, Marquess of
Wayland, Sir W. A.



Touche, G. C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Tree, A. R. L. F.
Wells, S. R.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pearson, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Poole, C. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, Agnes
Price, M. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Ammon, C. G.
Hayday, A.
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Banfield, J. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Sexton. T. M.


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, A, C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D, G.
Stokes, R. R.


Davies, S.O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Summerskill, Edith


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGovern, J.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Tomlinson, G.


Gallacher, W.
Mander, G. le M.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maxton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Granted, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Paling. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.



Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

BACON INDUSTRY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday, 14th June, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 136.]

BILLS REPORTED.

WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (SEWERAGE) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

GATESHEAD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords]): The Attorney-General, Mr. Benson, Mr. Clement Davies, Sir Geoffrey Ellis, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Pickthorn, Mr. Silverman, The Solicitor-General, Mr. H. Strauss, and Mr. Tomlinson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Scottish Land Court Bill,

East Lothian Water Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Royal Sheffield Infirmary and Hospital Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES RESERVES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.59 P.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The usual function of a Minister in moving the Second Reading of a Bill is twofold—first, to explain the actual provisions of the Bill and, second, to explain the principle upon which the Bill is based. The second of those two tasks will, I think, be a singularly easy one for me to-day, because I expect that the principle embodied in the Bill will be obvious in every part of the House. I well remember sitting here during a Debate in February upon a Motion moved by an hon. Member opposite on the question of food storage, when the Government and the spokesman of the Government, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, were pressed on all sides for a statement approving this principle and this policy. I remember many uncomplimentary epithets which were flung at the Minister for the Coordination of Defence for his speech that night. I think that the least that was said of him was that he was a stonewaller. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend at that moment was already considering certain transactions for the acquisition of food, and it is clear that a premature disclosure of them would have had grave disadvantages in the way both of price and facility for obtaining what was required. But I do feel, after that Debate, that there is really no dispute on any side of the House as to the desirability of the Government being in a position to accumulate certain stocks of essential commodities for use in a possible emergency in the future, which we all hope will not happen.
This Bill will give the Government a power which hitherto they have not possessed to create stocks of this character for civilian use. Hon. Members, of course, realise that the Service Departments are already entitled to bear on their Votes the accumulation of reserves for use in the Services; and this Bill,

through my Department, will confer a similar privilege in respect of commodities for the civil population. That is the principle of the Bill and on it I think there is no dispute. I wish to say something later as to the sort of general lines of policy upon which that principle is to be carried out. I therefore at once turn to the other part of my task, and that is an explanation of the provisions of the Bill. But I think I should first of all explain the relationship between my right hon. Friend the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, and myself, in this matter. This Bill is being introduced by me, and the expenditure which will be incurred in carrying it out will be borne on Votes for which I am responsible, and the responsibility for the execution will be mine. Therefore it might be said that, from a Parliamentary point of view, I am responsible. On the other hand, there must be a division of functions between my right hon. Friend and myself. The position there is still as it was stated by the Prime Minister in answer to a question as far back as last December, when he said:
 Provision for any expenditure which might be required for the purpose of food storage would fall to be included in the Parliamentary Vote for the Board of Trade. But since food storage is really a part of the larger subject of national defence, any questions upon the policy of food storage should be addressed to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1937; col. 1158, Vol. 330.]
That division does seem to me clearly right and logical. This policy is essentially one of the Defence Services and as such must in principle fall within the function of a Minister who has to coordinate those Services. Both the necessities of those Services and their resources must fluctuate from time to time; their needs must vary in relation to the preparedness or possibility of defence, as to the degree of vulnerability at one time or another of one locality or another. Similarly the resources upon which a call is to be made must be subject to adjustment in relation to the calls made for other Services which my right hon. Friend has to co-ordinate. On the other hand my Department is obviously much more closely in touch with those commercial interests and more conversant with those commercial methods which have to be used in the execution of the policy, when the policy is once decided upon. The closest possible co-operation and contact


are necessary between whoever is carrying out these orders, buying and managing these reserves, and the existing traders in the particular commodity. It is through a Department such as mine, where contacts of that kind already exist, that clearly the work of execution should be carried out.
I may roughly put it this way: In policy I should put such questions as the scale of the reserves to be accumulated, the nature of the reserve which is required at any particular time, the commodities to be selected. Once that is decided, the responsibility for carrying it out, for buying these stores, making arrangements for their maintenance and their storage and turning over, will be done through me and through my Department. In the appropriate case either it will be the Food (Defence Plans) Department, or the Ministry of Mines in the case of petroleum, or the Board of Trade which will deal with fertilisers. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), who speaks on this subject with very great authority, during a speech which he made in the Debate in February referred to the prospects of the Food (Defence Plans) Department in the most gloomy terms. He drew a rather sordid picture of a household in which the part of the niggardly stepfather was played by my right hon. Friend and in which I was the unwilling mother, while the Department was the unwanted, uncherished, and, as far as I can make out, the doubtfully legitimate child.

Sir Arthur Salter: I said unwillingly conceived and late born.

Mr. Stanley: I did not like to quote the whole of the hon. Gentleman's metaphor, but it is a fact that he mixed up alimony and affiliation.

Sir A. Salter: With great respect, I said nothing about the right hon. Gentleman being the mother.

Mr. Stanley: I was not complaining, because I think the hon. Member showed a refreshing innocence in a rather sordid matter. I beg the hon. Gentleman to seek a new picture more in accordance with his usual cheerful geniality. Let him seek a normal Victorian family. Let him represent my right hon. Friend as the heavy but benevolent father and myself as the devoted wife. The father, know-

ing the extent of the family income, knowing the other calls upon the family budget, lays down the general principles for the maintenance, the upbringing and the education of his offspring, while I, the mother, translate them into more homely domestic terms, buying clothes and engaging the governess. If the hon. Gentleman looks upon it in that light I do not think he need have any fear that this division of functions will result in any neglect of a Department which is recognised both by my right hon. Friend and myself as being of the utmost importance in the general scheme for the security of the country.
So I turn to the actual contents of the Bill. It is, I am glad to say, in contrast to some Measures which I have recently had to introduce, both short and simple. The first Clause empowers the Board of Trade to obtain information as to stocks of essential commodities and as to storage and other facilities in connection with them. This part is obviously essential; it is an essential preliminary to any proper plan of Government creation of reserves. I must pay a tribute, on behalf of the Government, to the voluntary co-operation which we have received in this matter from the great majority of the traders who are concerned. Without any of these powers they have been glad and willing to give us all the information that we require, but there is a minority which has not come into line, and the whole House will agree that this information we should have and that power must therefore be taken for us to obtain it.
Clause 2 is, of course, largely the operative Clause of the Bill. It is the Clause which gives to the Board of Trade the power to expend money in the creation of these stocks of essential commodities. I have tried in this Clause to make the powers conferred upon the Board of Trade as flexible as possible. Everyone will realise that you cannot, in finding the best and most economical method of dealing with all this range of commodities, lay down any one general principle. In the case of one commodity you may be able to create a reserve cheaply and easily on quite different lines from those which you have to adopt in the case of another commodity. For instance, in the one case it may be possible by certain inducements, by certain payments in respect of unused capital, simply to induce traders


to carry, on Government behalf, more than the normal stock which they would be carrying. On the other hand, in some commodities that might be found quite impossible, and it will then be necessary for the Government itself to purchase the necessary reserves.
It is the same with the question of storage, maintenance and turning over. In some cases it may be possible to make arrangements of one sort or another with the traders concerned. In others the Government will have to assume the sole responsibility for these functions. Clause 2 as drafted does give to the Board of Trade the power to adopt any of these methods which it may think is the best and cheapest in respect of the particular commodity concerned. Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 deals with a different point and is of considerable importance. The effect of the Sub-section is to provide that any liquidation—I mean complete liquidation of stocks accumulated under the powers of this Bill—cannot take effect without another Act of Parliament defining the manner in which it is to be carried out. One of the difficulties which anyone who has studied this problem has always foreseen is the effect upon the general trade of the country of large stocks, accumulated in Government hands, which might without any previous notice be thrown upon the market and disorganise the ordinary channels of trade. We all hope that a day will come when the period of emergency will pass, when measures of this character will become unnecessary and the stocks acquired under the Bill will be no longer required.
It is essential that, when we come to decide that the happy moment has arrived when liquidation is possible and necessary, it should not be hanging over the traders as a secret possibility which may burst upon them at any moment. Under the terms of this Sub-section it will be necessary for Parliament to decide, with full publicity, how, when the time comes, the liquidation of the stocks is to be carried out. That does not mean, of course, that we have not retained the power, which obviously we must have, to vary the stocks during the period while the Act is in force. Many of the commodities which we may have to buy are commodities which deteriorate, and have to be turned over more or less rapidly to prevent that deterioration; and

we have, of course, retained the power, as we must, to vary the emphasis which may from time to time be placed upon the stock of a particular commodity. In the light of the circumstances of the day, we may think that we require more of one thing and less of another. Circumstances may afterwards alter, and we may require less of the first thing and more of the second. We must obviously have power to make alterations of that kind.

Mr. Lewis: Would my right hon. Friend explain why it is thought desirable that there should be the utmost secrecy before the purchases are made, and the utmost publicity before the sales are made?

Mr. Stanley: It is not a question of publicity in the case of sales; it is that the traders should not feel that at any moment the Government have it in their power, without any notification, to wind up the whole transaction, and throw, perhaps, millions of pounds' worth of commodities on to the market. The fact that that cannot be done until it is authorised by a further Act of Parliament is a guarantee that they can carry on during the interval their ordinary trading methods without fear of an upset of that character.
Clause 3 is the financial Clause. I do not know that I need explain it in detail, because it is set out very clearly, but the principle of it is that a revolving fund shall be set up which will be under the control and management of the Board of Trade. Into that fund will be paid both the sums of money which will be voted by Parliament from time to time and any receipts which the Board of Trade gets from the sale of these stocks during the process of turning them over; and out of the fund will be paid all the expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in carrying out these transactions for the creation of reserves. Sub-section (3) also validates those transactions which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House, have already been carried out. I think the Government can well be gratified by the spirit in which the House received the announcement that these anticipatory purchases had already been made. The method adopted was admittedly an extraordinary one, but I think all of us realise that the times, too, are extraordinary, and that it was a wise thing to complete the purchase of these particular commodities before the publicity given by the discussion of a Bill.


I think hon. Members will agree with me that those three commodities, namely, wheat, whale oil and sugar, were just the three commodities that anyone interested in the subject would know that the Government would have to buy, and would probably have to buy first. These financial transactions, when the Bill becomes law, can be cleared up, and, of course, the money for them will come out of the money voted by a Supplementary Estimate which will be presented in July.
Clause 4 is merely the usual Clause enabling us to enforce the powers under Clause 1. Clause 5 gives the power to make orders—orders which, as a matter of fact, will be of only one character, that is to say, orders defining what is an essential commodity. These orders will in due course be laid before Parliament, but will not, of course, be subject to resolutions. Clause 6 is the interpretation Clause, on which I need not dwell; but I should like to say a word or two about the Schedule, which describes the types of commodities which may be declared to be essential commodities in time of war. The Schedule limits the commodities to foodstuffs, forage, fertilisers and petroleum. I do not think I need make out a case for the inclusion of any of these four types of commodities. All of us are agreed as to the prime necessity of including foodstuffs. Petroleum, obviously, is equally essential, and equally liable to dislocation in an emergency. Fertilisers stand, perhaps, on a rather different footing, but we include them on the ground that one of the first things the country will have to do at the outbreak of any war is to put into force the policy of increasing the home production of food. That must necessitate, if the season is favourable, an immediate increase in the use of fertilisers as the first step in a policy of increased production, and it is, therefore, essential that we should have, at whatever time the emergency breaks out, a sufficient stock of fertilisers in the country to enable that policy to be put into operation at the earliest possible moment.
Probably hon. Members will be more inclined, rather than to criticise the inclusion of these particular commodities, to question the exclusion of others, and I want to make quite plain at the outset the reason why the Government have at the moment restricted the powers under

the Bill to commodities of these four types. They have given very careful consideration to the subject, and fully recognise the arguments on the other side. On the other hand, one must realise that under this Bill the Government are taking very big and very unusual powers. Undoubtedly, whatever safeguards you give them, and however much you try to work in co-operation with them, it is disturbing to those engaged in trading in the commodities covered by the Bill to know that the Government have these large powers which at any time they may use, and the knowledge of Government action on a large scale is bound to have some upsetting effect upon normal business.
There is also a very great danger that quite undue reliance may be placed by industries or traders upon the powers that the Government have under the Bill, and this may cause them to neglect the steps which I think we are all entitled to look to them to take, not only for the sake of the general community but for their own. After all, an industry which has to shut down because of shortage of stocks of raw materials during an emergency, is, when it is shut down, unable to earn profits or to avoid loss, and, apart from wider considerations, it is to the financial interest of the industry itself to take measures to prevent that occurring. We do not want measures which should be taken by industries to be avoided in the belief that the Government themselves are going to create large stocks of commodities which in fact they may have no intention whatever of purchasing, and which they do not believe to be appropriate commodities for reserves of this kind. Therefore, we have confined the Bill to those types of commodities which we know now are absolutely certain to be required for acquisition under the Bill. If at any other time we believe that some type of commodity, at present excluded from the Bill, is necessary, then we shall have to come again to the House for extended powers.
Having dealt with the provisions of the Bill, I think that probably it will be of interest to the House to have, and that it is entitled to have, some details of the transactions which have already been carried out and which are being validated by the Bill. I have, and I am sure the House has, some difficulty in knowing exactly what information it is really pos-


sible to ask for and to give in the discussion of this subject. I was particularly struck by the fact that during the previous Debate hon. Members in all parts of the House disclaimed willingly, and, if I may say so, I think rightly, any desire to have certain and precise information. The hon. Member for Oxford University, for instance, said that he did not want to know, and did not think he was entitled to ask for, the amount of the stock of any particular commodity or the exact location of any storage of these commodities. I am anxious to give to the House all the information that I possibly can, but hon. Members and others recognise that there is a limit beyond which it is not to the national advantage to go in making disclosures of this kind.
Let me deal first with wheat. The Chancellor in his speech explained how the purchase of the wheat had been effected, and I should like to give the House some information about the arrangements we made for its maintenance in storage. Wheat, as hon. Members know, is a commodity which requires very frequent turning over to prevent its deterioration, and from that point of view it is, perhaps, one of the most difficult commodities to include in a storage policy of this kind. Hon. Members will recollect that the Chancellor named the concerns, Joseph Rank, Limited, and the Co-operative Wholesale Society of England, who had assisted in the buying of this wheat. These concerns, with the Co-operative Wholesale Society of Scotland and Messrs. Spillers, have been entrusted with the custody of the wheat. They will hold it on Government account and take it over when the time comes for milling to prevent deterioration; and, when they do that, they will make it good by an equivalent purchase on account of the Government. I may add that, as in connection with the transactions for purchase, these concerns are taking no commission, and are being paid only their out-of-pocket expenses; and they have also given the Government a pledge that they will maintain their own normal reserves at the same time as they are carrying these extra stocks for the Government. I think we can say that they have co-operated with us in a real desire to help the national interest.
With regard to storage, this wheat will be stored in the ports. It will be dispersed as far as possible, and as far as possible, of course, it will be stored in ports on the West Coast. I have studied carefully all the arguments for inland storage, and I quite admit, as all of us must, its desirability, if it is practicable, in comparison with alternative forms of storage. But the trouble about inland storage is that it would add enormously to the cost. It would add not only to the cost of construction in so far as the Government had to build new silos in inland districts, but it would add very greatly indeed to the cost of maintenance and of turning over. The fact that most of the mills are in the ports means that if you first of all land the wheat at the docks, then take it inland, and then, when the time comes for milling it, have to take it back to the docks, it adds enormously to the expenditure, and, I believe, something like doubles or trebles it. It is our view that that extra money, spent, I agree, in getting increased security for that wheat, could better be spent in the purchase of other essential commodities.
With regard to sugar, the arrangements for purchase have already been completed, but the method there has been a rather different one. It has been to buy from a trader certain stocks which he now has in this country, or potential stocks in the future, on the condition that he replaces them immediately or in the future by an equivalent amount. A certain amount has already been earmarked, and the stocks bought by the trader to replace them have already arrived in this country. This sugar will be in the custody of the British Sugar Corporation, which will be responsible for the technical supervision of the storage and for the turning over, and I am glad to say that this company also is receiving no commission for this work, but only out-of-pocket expenses. There again I would like to pay a tribute to the way in which the company has met us. With regard to storage, the sugar is to be dispersed in inland centres, and arrangements have already been made for the erection of the new warehouses which will be required.
Now for the third commodity, whale oil. Whale oil is selected as providing one of our greatest necessities, which would be fat. It is used as one of the basic components of margarine, and whale oil has been selected as being of all oils the


easiest oil to store. It can be kept in its crude state for a very long period of time, even for years, without any deterioration, and that fact, of course, simplifies enormously the problem of turning over the stock. The purchase of this whale oil has been completed. Most of the purchase is already in this country or on the way, but the final arrangements for its dispersion into storage and its management are not as far advanced as they are in the case of the other commodities, and I am not yet able to make a final pronouncement upon them. I should like to say, however, with reference to all these three stocks, that no further purchases of any of the three are at present contemplated. The House will realise that in July it will be necessary to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate, which will give me the opportunity of giving the same kind of information as I have already given to the House about any further transactions which may have been carried through during the interval.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Will my right hon. Friend be able to give us any estimate of the cost in the current year?

Mr. Stanley: That, of course, will be shown on the Supplementary Estimate. I want now to say one or two words about the object of the kind of food storage which we contemplate under this Bill, because it is a matter on which I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding, not among those who speak about it in this House, but among those who read about it outside. I do not believe there is anyone here who has studied the matter who wants a storage policy, or thinks it possible to have a storage policy, which makes this country independent of outside supplies for anything but the most limited period. To attempt to do so would be the most gigantic task, involving huge sums of money, and all of us agree that that money could much better be spent on the Services whose duty it is to ensure that the approaches to this Island are kept open.
This is not a prevention, it is a precaution. However powerful our defences may be, we have always to face two contingencies. The first is that, whether by naval action, which causes us temporarily to lose control of the seas, or by air action, which may make the approach

to our shores difficult, there is an interruption in the supplies of essential commodities from abroad. The other contingency is that, although we may have in this country ample supplies of the commodities required, there may be, through air action in a particular district, such a breakdown of distribution that it is impossible to get the supplies to the consumer in that particular place. It is clear that the types of reserves which we need for those two contingencies are dissimilar. I have dealt so far, in the three types which have been purchased already, only with the first contingency, that is, the temporary interruption of the import of those commodities from abroad. The other, the dislocation of distribution in a particular district, calls for quite different sorts of reserves. It is no good having stocks of crude whale oil or unmilled wheat, and the locality of the storage must, of course, depend upon the vulnerability of the district. What one wants under circumstances of that kind is not whale oil or wheat, but something which can be consumed immediately by the public or which can as readily and quickly as possible be made consumable. I should not like the House to think that we have overlooked that contingency, and the necessity for providing for it is one of the main objects of this Bill.
One point, I think, is quite clear, that in any decision which we may take as to this, we must keep in the closest possible touch with the Air-Raid Precautions Department, because clearly the sort of schemes for evacuation which were discussed in the House only yesterday have the greatest possible bearing upon the location and the amount of reserves of this kind. After all, whatever we do, we cannot under this Bill do more than guard against a contingency. Our first objective must always be to try to retain the command of the seas, to try to enable our ships to enter the ports of this country in war as well as in peace, and for that reason this expenditure on food storage must take its place in relation to the expenditure which we think desirable upon the other Services. I must almost apologise for mentioning the word "finance" in connection with national security, but it does seem to me that the way in which Debates in this House have to be carried on makes for the discussion of the whole of this problem in compartments. One day we are discuss-


ing food storage, yesterday we were discussing air-raid precautions, another day we shall have the Air Force Estimates, and on each of these days hon. Members can put forward claims for that particular branch of security which in themselves may seem moderate and desirable, but when you total them all up, the total may seem extravagant and disastrous.
There is, after all, some limit, however elastic it may be, to the financial and commercial capacity of this country, and I would like to make this point, because we sometimes try to deceive ourselves into thinking we can shuffle it off by putting it all op capital expenditure. There is a limit to borrowing potentialities, just as there is a limit to expenditure out of revenue. Commerce and finance, which, after all, are my chief concern, are just as important a factor in this country in a war as are the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force. Indeed, in the case of a long war, they may be the decisive factor, and the risk of throwing away that weapon is one that we have to weigh very carefully. To a mere amateur strategist like myself, speaking in the presence of experts, it seems that we have always to have in our mind two possibilities, the short war and the long war, and that over-insurance against the loss of the short war may well deprive us of our capacity to win the long war, just as under-insurance against the loss of the short war may deprive us of ever having the opportunity of bringing our long-term resources into play. Those are the sort of factors that, in carrying out this Bill, my right hon. Friend and the Government will always have to weigh, and in doing that and in carrying out a policy based upon those factors, this Bill will, I believe, prove to be a real contribution to national security.

Mr. De la Bère: My right hon. Friend alluded to the necessity for the storage of food and of fertilisers, and said that in an emergency more home-grown foodstuffs would have to be produced. Would it not be better to have those foodstuffs grown before the emergency arose?

The Speaker: We cannot go into a debate on that point.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I am sure the House is indebted to the right hon.

Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for a very clear and, however much he may disclaim being an expert, an expert exhibition of the proposals now before the House. It is true that in the course of his speech he exchanged a few light remarks with the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) and seemed anxious, after the experience of the House yesterday, to introduce at the earliest possible moment a lighter tone into the Debate. But however much he may have tried in that direction, I am sure the House must feel that this is just another of that succession of Parliamentary days which we have to face largely because of the policy, or lack of policy, of European nations in the last few years, a European policy in which we ourselves have been implicated and which some of us may feel could have been influenced into a very different channel from that in which we find ourselves travelling today. I am bound to say that, whereas there are people who have thought about these troubles, who may have been pressing the Government, not for months but for years past, to do something of this kind—those who have recognised the necessity for the maintenance of the power and influence of British commerce and finance in any conflict that may arise, but have been hesitant about taking emergency steps before an emergency really arose—perhaps the most significant thing to-day is that we are asked to approve the first stage of action taken by the Government, because not only the Government, but financial and commercial interests also, believe that at least the danger of an emergency has arisen.
That is the most serious side of the position that we face to-day. On the other hand, while I am necessarily very critical of the Government, and might well still be critical about future action to be taken, if it does not meet with our approval, I am bound to say that, while a good deal of agitation has been going on about the preparation of reserves of this kind, it is true that the Government have not been completely inactive. Discussions on this question have gone on for a very long time. The Minister has referred to the problem not merely of the actual purchase of reserves, but of the organisation which will be required to deal with any emergency arising either from shortage of supplies of necessary food and raw material from oversea, or


from disclocation of existing supplies in this country. In that connection, I think it is true to say that there is at present a much better organisation—I was going to say skeleton organisation, but it is no longer a skeleton organisation—ready to begin to grapple with these problems if, unfortunately, the need should arise, than has yet been recognised by the critizens in general. I would not be fair if I did not say that the Food (Defence Plans) Department which, I gather, operates mostly under the aegis of the right hon. Gentleman has made very substantial progress, as I am aware from my own knowledge and experience under Sir Henry French in the preparation of plans.
I am bound to speak on a Bill of this kind largely from my own knowledge and experience, and these lead me to believe that this Bill is very necessary, and I hope that it will be passed. It is not merely an enabling Bill. I understand, subject to correction, that the Government have not yet been called upon to make any payment in respect of particular transactions but that, nevertheless, the action taken with regard to certain purchases and the acquisition of stocks, to which the President referred, needs indemnification because that action will ultimately involve a charge upon the public funds. While I, as a good House of Commons man, would on most occasions protest very strongly against the House being committed to an expenditure, on an act for which the House has given no authority, I am bound to say on this occasion, considering the state of affairs in which the Food (Defence Plans) Department had to act, I can see that there would have been much greater public injury by having a Resolution of the House in the first instance authorising specific action. Particularly it would have been a greater injury to trade and to the consumer—not in war time, but in current circumstances—than would have been justified.
The Opposition are usually anxious to find a point of profound House of Commons difference with the Government on a procedure of this kind, but in this case I see no other course than to give our approval to the action taken, which will, ultimately, involve some charge on the public funds. As to the actual separate transactions dealing with wheat, whale

oil and the other commodity, I do not propose to say anything because the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a personal reference to me in this connection on a previous occasion. I would only say that those who are organised in the consumers' movement in this country, hating war as they do, anxious as they are to-see a League policy adopted, and hoping still against hope that the Government may yet adopt a League policy of a kind that will prevent war, by mobilising the peace nations in the world against the aggressors—they recognise that whatever Government is in office has a great responsibility for feeding and maintaining the life and strength of the people should war break out, and in regard to any essential stocks which are required for such a purpose, that organisation will always be willing to do what it can to-assist in the interests of the nation at large.
I wish to make a special reference to Clause 2, Sub-section (3). The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, has taken the best advice available in commercial circles as to the policy on which he was interrupted just now by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). I am sure he will agree that there is more to be said and more thinking to be done before a final policy is decided upon and that in respect of disposal of stocks, prior Parliamentary authority is essential. Judging from experience of the way in which tremendous losses were incurred by the State after the last War and what we have seen of the way in which certain uncontrolled profiteers made huge fortunes, I at least have some doubt as to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Colchester. I can see that in regard to some commodities you may have certain market conditions and practice which require very delicate working day by day in cases where the market is affected by future prospects, extending over a number of months, and I can see that unless you could get rid of wild and unnecessary rumours, the consumer in the period of dissipation of stocks might be very much injured by violent fluctuations. I regard that part of the President's answer as being rightly based, but there are commodities regarding which the question of the holding or disposal of stocks must be carefully considered by those who are acting on behalf of the Government with


a view to finding the cheapest way for the Government, and the safest way for the consumer to dispose of those stocks. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that what he has said in regard to this Sub-section of Clause 2 is not the last word on the matter, and that some further consideration will be given to it.
With regard to the Financial Clause my hon. Friends have asked me to draw attention to Sub-section (4) which provides:
 (4) The Treasury may out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof make temporary advances to the fund, but any sum so advanced shall be repaid out of the fund to the Exchequer not later than the thirtieth day of September next following the end of the financial year in which the advance was made.
There is here a House of Commons point. It may be argued that the fact that it is necessary to come to the House for a Supply Vote for the actual expenditure is a safeguard, but there is some nervousness on the part of certain of my hon. Friends, especially those who are more experienced than I am in dealing with the public accounts. They are anxious to know whether Parliament ought not to have a better guarantee as to the limit of expenditure in any financial year, instead of having to wait for the laying of the Supply Vote. That is the point for what it is worth, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence replies, I hope he will tell us whether that has been considered, and what are the views of the Treasury.
I think it is unnecessary for me to venture any opinion upon the strategical case which was advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. In the old days I have discussed these matters in circles like the Committee of Imperial Defence, but as things may have altered as the result of changes in the alliances of Powers and in the balance of forces, in a region and contingencies which are likely to arise, I would not at this moment, and in respect of this Bill, desire to offer any detailed opinion. But there may be a serious danger to the Government, from the fact that they have had to bring in this Bill, that pressure will be brought to bear on them from all sorts of commercial quarters. I have noticed the tendency already at Question Time to

raise questions about a large number of commodities. I have noticed that the agricultural industry itself, which is not altogether a pauper now from the point of view of funds received from the Exchequer, has used every opportunity of bringing pressure to bear as regards the laying of stocks of commodities which the British industry is capable of producing.

Mr. Hopkin: Hear, hear. Why not?

Mr. Alexander: I agree. All these matters have been raised, but whether the considerations put forward by the agricultural industry are necessarily right is a matter for further debate. When one remembers the experience of this country in the late War, even after the British agricultural industry had been harnessed to a very large measure of production and the extent to which this country is dependent upon supplies from oversea and dependent upon the Navy and the other defences, it is vastly important, and indeed essential, that any high expenditure required by the State for building up reserves in peacetime should be very selective expenditure calculated to deal with exactly the right kind of commodities. I am not going to trouble the House with a long series of quotations, but this Debate brought to my mind a book which I read many years ago. It is a more or less personal memoir by Sir Frank Coller, who was in charge of the Ministry of Food, and was subsequently at the Board of Trade. It was called "A State Trading Adventure." The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but the fact is that directly you come to a major emergency like the war then private enterprise breaks down.

Mr. Stanley: I only smiled because I was remembering what the right hon. Gentleman said about the losses incurred after the last War.

Mr. Alexander: I answer the right hon. Gentleman on that point by pointing to the title of the book. It was an adventure in State trading, and it was certainly not an experiment in State ownership and State control, and most of the losses were incurred because the Government wanted to maintain the principle of private profit all the way through. The point which I was going to quote from the book was that which dealt with oversea purchases:


 Mr. Churchill had stated in the House of Commons that the entry of America into the War placed for the first time the triumph of the allied cause beyond the reach of doubt; it certainly enabled the United States to give substantial though costly help in combating the difficulties of inter-allied supplies. In the autumn of 1917 it was estimated that our year's requirements in foodstuffs from the United States and Canada would exceed 10,000,000 tons and represent an expenditure, apart from freight charges, of approximately £250,000,000.
That was in regard to urgently required overseas supplies from the United States and Canada alone. It just emphasises the fact that, with an enormous number, probably, of your citizens put upon entirely non-productive occupations in war time, with the strain of carrying on your home production, it is absolutely vital, if you are to win such a war, that you have provisions for your imports; or, if there is any temporary dislocation of those imports, either on the way here or by air raids after they have arrived, you should have a reserve of an adequate kind. I think that, on the whole, the Government's policy has been wisely chosen and well based. It might be that they would add to the provision they have made if the Agricultural Organisation Department could, by organisation, stimulate some essential food production, if that could be done without undue dislocation of our existing trade. But I am not at all sure that a widespread panic policy of stimulating British agriculture, ploughing everything up in advance, would not be one of the most dangerous ways of dealing with the situation from the point of view of preparing a food supply for war.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but, on the lines we have indicated, we shall listen to the rest of the Debate, and we hope, from the point of view of the fact that reserves are now required, the Board of Trade will not cease from pressing upon the Cabinet as a whole the desirability of returning to such a collective policy that we shall no longer have the growth of threats to our food supply. I cannot imagine how it is that a. Government obsessed with these responsibilities can continue a policy which allows, in the Spanish peninsula, the growth of new threats to our overseas food supply, and find itself almost impotent of ideas as to how to stem such threats. If those threats arise, we agree that provi-

sion for the food necessary for the life of the people must be made.

5.4 P.m.

Mr. Owen Evans: I would like to join with my right hon. Friend in saying that we welcome this Bill and trust that the House will accept it. It is an indication, I think, that the Government are moving, perhaps slowly but, let us hope, surely, towards a strengthening of our defences on the home front. I would draw attention to one curious contradiction in the Bill, which I would like the Minister to explain. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says that Clause 1 makes provision to give the board power
 to obtain information from traders concerning stocks of the commodities held by them and the output capacity of plant for manufacturing commodities. …
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 1, he will see that there is no power given in the Clause itself to obtain information in regard to capacity. I draw attention to that because it is of the utmost importance not only that the information provided for in Clause 1 should be obtained but that, in order to measure the strength of the country in such circumstances, information as to the output capacity of the country should also be obtained. One has only to refer to one item mentioned in the Schedule—" Petroleum, and any product of petroleum "—to realise that it is extremely important that we should know what is the output of petroleum from the refineries. It is also important to know the capacity of the country to produce consumable products from that commodity. I suggest that in Committee the necessary additional words should be put in to make it quite clear that the board will have the power to get this information.
The Minister has anticipated the criticism that might be made that the Schedule is too restricted. He seems to draw a distinction not between one essential product and another, but from the point of view that there are not more essential products. There must be others, however, which are not included in the Schedule. If I understood him rightly, he argued that it was unnecessary, at this stage at any rate, to include these other essential products, because it might lead to traders placing undue reliance upon Government measures, and that the Gov-


ernment expect traders or manufacturers of these commodities to take certain steps themselves. No doubt the Government have found out that traders are always willing to co-operate with the Government in this mater. But I was pleased to see that it might be not the last word of the Government, because the Minister indicated that they would take more extended powers if, through changed circumstances, it became necessary.
There are other commodities which, although they are not food, are very important raw materials, and are extremely essential to the carrying on of war. Take copper, for example. The consumption of copper in this country last year was something over 300,000 tons, and to the end of April this year it was 103,000 tons. That is at the rate of 25,000 tons a month. But the stocks of copper in this country have shown a considerable decrease, which has been somewhat alarming. In 1937 the known stocks in this country went down to 31,000 tons, and in April this year the stocks were only 32,000 tons. That is only just over one month's consumption. Similar considerations apply to lead. The consumption in 1937 in this country was about 365,000 tons— 1,000 tons a day. This year it is going at the rate of 332,000 tons, and the stocks of this country on 31st March were only 12,000 tons. These matters would be of extreme importance in the conduct of a war or in an emergency, because huge tonnage would be required for carrying these products into this country from abroad. Traders and manufacturers, as I am quite sure the Board of Trade will testify, are always prepared to give all assistance. They are expected to carry stocks, and the Minister hopes that these stocks will be increased. The stocks of the commodities mentioned in the Schedule are really financed by the Government, and it is, to say the least, not generous to expect traders in these other commodities to increase their own stocks while the Government are helping to finance the increase of those stocks mentioned in the Schedule.
I am very pleased with the provision regarding the liquidation of stock. What the procedure will be I do not know, but I happen to know that in respect of some commodities which were left over after the last War, the Government, in conjunction with those who had know-

ledge in such matters, did sell those stocks not at a big loss, but pari passu with stocks held by traders, so as not to destroy the trade of the country. I suggest that some definite plans for liquidating these stocks should be made. The explanation by the Minister of the relative functions of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence in this matter are such as the House will welcome. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is the man more of ideas than of action. Let him just pass this injunction to the Government, that at any rate they should not be stampeded by any interest at all to purchase stocks unduly. After the War, I had occasion to appear before the Public Accounts Committee of this House —long before I became a Member of this House—when the Government were unduly stampeded into spending hundreds of thousands of pounds unnecessarily; and may I offer this advice to the Government —I am quite sure they are conscious of the importance of the matter—that, whatever method they adopt, they should employ to purchase these stocks men who know something about the job. Above all, it is extremely important not only that they know their job, but that they are men of integrity and honour and are not out to make profit for themselves. We remember the glaring instances which occurred during the last War when the Government lost hundreds of thousands of pounds which otherwise would have been saved. I support the Bill.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I only wish to ask questions on two points in connection with Clause 2. One of these relates to Subsection (1). Perhaps those who are more expert than I follow the intention, but I find it rather difficult. Apparently, the intention is that there shall be grants or loans from His Majesty's Government to enable a trader to hold more of a commodity, X, than he otherwise would hold, but it does not seem clear from the Bill what arrangements there are to make sure that he continues to hold that excess, that additional amount of X. Presumably his ordinary holdings would go up and down, but it does not seem clear what machinery there is for maintaining that excess, that additional amount, as long as it is wanted.
The second point is that my right hon. Friend who explained the Bill to us very clearly, and the right hon. Gentleman the


Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) seemed to have slightly different interpretations of Sub-section (3) of Clause 2: and I should like to know which is the right one. No doubt it is true that the existence of reserves of this sort must in any case tend to depress the market, and, no doubt, it would be much worse if there were serious risks of secret and sudden unloadings. For all I have to say on the matter, being extremely inexpert, this Sub-section is the best way to try and avoid these dangers. It is clear that in practice the Sub-section cannot ever really be watertight whatever words are put in. The most we could ever get is a certainty that the Government would not risk unloading except in the situation where they felt sure they would have the support of a very large majority of this House. I do not think we can get anything more watertight than that. Any Government which feels sure that it would have the same measure of approval in this House, as this Government had when they made the purchase of whale oil and other things a short time ago, would in any case be able to drive a coach-and-four through the Sub-section.
Apart from that difficulty, the ambiguity which seems to be in the explanations of Sub-section (3) is this. I understood from the President of the Board of Trade that once the stocks had been accumulated the thing might be turned over by sales here and there of 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., as the case might be, or it might be increased as need demanded, but in general it might not be liquidated or reduced to nothing. As I understood the President of the Board of Trade, he was treating the whole thing—all the things bought under the Schedule—as a global amount, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough seemed rather to treat it as though the globality would be inside the sub-divisions. Once you have got so much worth of wheat you would have, in the long run, apart from small waves of turnover and so on, to keep that amount of wheat, and similarly with regard to the amount of whale oil or other commodities which might be defined as food or fodder by Orders: it is not quite clear from the Bill or from the speeches we have had hitherto which of these two interpretations is the intention and I should be grateful if that could be made clear.

5.20 p.m.

Sir A. Salter: I think it is significant that we are devoting the last two full days before the Recess to discussions of problems of civilian, or what is often called passive, defence. This reflects a growing recognition in this House that this side of our defence problem has been unduly neglected, and that in present circumstances we can get better value for each unit of either money or of effort in this sphere than in any other sphere of effort in regard to our external dangers. I say at once that I cordially welcome the action which was announced to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I support this Bill now before us. I confess, too, that my speech will be substantially different not only in detail, but to some extent in tone, from what I had intended because of the information which we have received this afternoon from the President of the Board of Trade. Though, as I shall show, I consider that there is a good deal more information that he might reasonably give us, at any rate, he has given us a great deal more than we have ever had before.
I do not, however, propose to spend my time this afternoon in throwing bouquets to the Government—I think they are premature at present—because, in spite of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, we do not really know what has yet been done, and we do not yet know even the general order or magnitude of what he intends to do. I must add—and I think it is obvious to the whole House—that since what has been done is rather the result of external stimulus than spontaneous initiative, we have no very considerable assurance that the powers which are now embodied in this Bill will be used as amply as we should desire them to be.
What is this Bill which is before us? It is a Bill that, within the sphere of the commodities defined, gives almost infinite powers, combined with almost infinitesimal indications of policy. We have powers, but neither promises nor policies nor plans. It is a very extraordinary Bill from the point of view of the customary privileges and responsibilities of this House. In the first place, it is an act of indemnity for what is admittedly illegal. I do not criticise the Government for that. The Bill is a very laudible Bill, but it is a Bill of indemnity


for expenditure, which, at the time it was incurred, was illegal, in the same way as was the expenditure on the Suez Canal shares. As I say, I approve of it, but, surely, when an act of indemnity is asked for we are entitled, unless there is some particularly strong reason to the contrary, to ask what it is for which indemnity has been sought? The President of the Board of Trade said that the operations have been completed, and that it is not contemplated in the near future that any more money will be spent upon the three commodities of which stocks have been purchased. If that is so, and if, as I understand, a Supplementary Estimate is to be introduced next month, which will make it clear how much has been spent, surely, at the moment, when we are asked by Act of Parliament to give an indemnity for what is an illegal act, we may reasonably ask the amount of expenditure which has been so incurred.
Secondly, apart from the past, this Bill—I think rightly and necessarily, in view of the existing conditions of this problem—abrogates the normal privileges and responsibilities of this House in a very unusual degree. Within the sphere of the commodities concerned, the Government can do almost anything, or, unhappily, almost nothing. This is an enabling Bill. It does not require the Government to purchase anything or to spend any money. For all we know, they may spend hardly anything at all, or everything that they spend may be spent, let us say, on petroleum and not on food at all, or may make provision for a very short period indeed. They may, in doing that, spend the whole of the money by way of grants or loans to the trade, or they may acquire stocks of their own, and they may arrange for the disposal of the stocks in places where they would be very vulnerable and without the protection which a different form of storage would give. I am not suggesting that the powers should in any way be limited, but the amplitude of these powers does, I think, suggest that we have at least legitimate claim to ask for the clearest and fullest indications of policy that are practicable. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we have never asked for information as to the quantities of particular foodstuffs which it is proposed to purchase, or as to the particular places where it is proposed to store them,

but we might reasonably ask for some indications of the general order of magnitude of the plan which the Government have in hand.
I was a little disturbed to hear that no more is to be purchased of the three particular commodities, because I remember that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that purchase he referred to it as a purchase sufficient in regard to these commodities to secure that we had stocks in this country for the first few months of an emergency. But even in normal circumstances we have enough wheat, for example, for some months. I sincerely trust that the purchases which have been made of these articles, and the purchases that are contemplated in regard to other articles, will very substantially increase the period during which we could endure in a situation in which a large proportion of our imports from abroad were interfered with. As to the Bill itself, I see very little requirement that we should have information as to what is being or has been done except a very long time after the event. Here I would like to ask a technical question of which I cannot discover the answer myself. Reading the introduction of the Bill, I understand that a Supplementary Estimate will be presented in due course, and I understand at present that that means next month.

Mr. Stanley: In July.

Sir A. Salter: When I look at the actual text of the Bill I see that, in the first instance, expenditure is to be financed by advances from the Consolidated Fund, and that these advances are to be repaid to the Exchequer by moneys provided by Parliament before the 30th September in the next following year after that in which the advances have been made. That in itself would suggest that we should be told, by means of voting money some time, let us say in 1939, in respect of expenditure that might have been incurred at this moment. We should, further, in due course, have an account presented, before the end of November next year, which would reach us some time in the year 1940. I understand from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade that, on the contrary, we shall know this year what has already been spent. I would ask him whether, when that Supplementary Estimate is presented, it will show clearly what has


been spent on the three specific commodities which have already been purchased? If that is the intention, I suggest that it would be appropriate to inform us now of the total amount that has been spent, for which indemnity is sought.
I should like to refer to the financing of this undertaking. I infer from the wording of the Bill that when the money is repaid under the provisions there devised it comes out of the current revenue and is treated not as capital but as current expenditure. If that is so, I suggest that it is regrettable, because there is no part of the whole of the £400,000,000 which we are financing for our Defence programme on a loan basis which represents genuinely capital expenditure so fully and so completely as the initial provision of the food stocks and the store houses for them. This is not merely a theoretical point. It is a practical matter, because if this current expenditure is to be added as a provision in the Budget there will be very great pressure in this House to restrict the utilisation of the powers in the Bill. The cost of food storage which I recommended would only involve about £5,000,000 per annum, including any charge in respect of capital expenditure, but, of course, the initial expenditure would be very considerable. The first main question that I would ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us, in whatever formula he chooses, some idea of the general order of magnitude of food storage provision that he is making and to what extent is it going to increase our capacity to endure in a period of emergency?
Another point to which I should like to refer is the allocation of responsibility between the Board of Trade and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I was greatly disappointed by the explanation of the effect of the present proposals by the President of the Board of Trade. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman cannot assume as direct and as complete a responsibility for the provision of the food reserves that are necessary as, let us say, the First Lord of the Admiralty does for the provision of battleships. I agree that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is concerned with co-ordination. If the Admiralty want more battleships than can be provided without impinging upon the necessary minimum supplies to other Ser-

vices, there is a problem of co-ordination, but the first specific responsibility for providing the battleships rests with the Admiralty, represented by the First Lord.
I do not see why it follows, from any arguments used by the President of the Board of Trade, that he should not have precisely the same direct personal and Ministerial responsibility for providing to meet this national necessity of food, subject only to the general co-ordination for which the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is responsible in regard to the programmes of the Defence Services. I make that point not only as a matter of principle but because I have never been able to discover as much enthusiasm as I should have wished to discover in the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence for providing food storage on what I should regard as an adequate scale. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. O. Evans) welcomed this responsibility because he said the Minister for the Coordination of Defence was a man of ideas rather than of action. It is precisely for that reason that I want to see a rather different allocation of responsibility.
The House will remember the very long period which elapsed before the establishment of the Food Defence Department. For more than a year afterwards we were trying to get a decision that the Government would even in principle decide to store food. We know how long it was before we got that decision, and we are bound to infer that that attitude of mind has not been replaced by enthusiasm on the part of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, in spite of the purchases that have taken place. Only yesterday the right hon. Gentleman, speaking at a luncheon, referred to food storage in these words:
 To some extent food storage may be a desirable thing, but over a long period food storage must be a matter of degree.
That does not suggest that he contemplates with enthusiasm any very large expansion of that policy. He said in another passage which is reported in the "Times":
 It might be that other nations concerned thought that we were engaged in a game of innocent bluff. He would not say whether we were or not.

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): That reference had nothing to do with food. It was a wholly different matter.

Sir A. Salter: Then I will drop that point, but from the context of the short report it did appear that it had relation to food. In regard to the question of food storage we are entitled to say that the Minister did not show any eagerness to act quickly. Perhaps, as the hon. Member for Cardigan said, his experience and temperament fit him more for planning than for action, partly because he has many other functions.

Sir John Withers: It was extremely important that he did not appear to act quickly. The great point was to get the thing done without anybody knowing that it was being done. Therefore, he acted very properly in keeping it quiet.

Sir A. Salter: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. It was right not to indicate to us beforehand that he was going to act in this way, but inasmuch as there had been continuous agitation both in this House and outside for at least two years before the Food (Defence Plans) Department was created, I think it was a long time to wait from the creation of that Department, in December, 1936, to April, 1938, before any action was taken. During that time it was quite clear that the Government were not carefully and skilfully planning the action which was intended to be carried out. It was obvious that it was only very late in that long period that they came to the conviction that it was desirable to purchase these stores. I was hoping, therefore, that we should have had a specific and direct responsibility accepted by the President of the Board of Trade for securing that we had really adequate food reserves, and that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence would have confined himself to the normal duties of co-ordination. One would have thought that my right hon. learned and overweighted Friend would have been glad to come to some arrangement of that kind, which would indeed have been more in conformity with the allocation of functions that was announced when the Food (Defence Plans) Department was originally established.
I should like the President of the Board of Trade to give us a clear idea as to the magnitude of the food reserves which the Government have in mind, subject to the qualifications which I have made, as well as those which the right hon. Gentleman has made, as to what can be disclosed. I would ask him also whether,

taking into full account what he said about the reasons for storing wheat in the silos of the ports, we cannot do something more to secure that a large proportion of our supplies are rendered immune from attack. Would it not be possible, for example, to arrange for inland storage, say, of flour, in the hands of a large number of bakers, who might add somewhat to the storage accommodation which they normally have? You would need to have the flour turned over relatively quickly, but you would be able to arrange for the storage of supplies of flour precisely where it might be required for consumption and where it would have the maximum immunity from attack.

Mr. Alexander: If it was only a question of increasing the supply held by the bakers for one or two weeks that might be a comparatively easy matter, but it would be a totally different matter if you had hundreds of these people making claims later for compensation because of the movements in the market.

Sir A. Salter: I fully agree that it would be difficult to do it and I do not suggest it as a substitute for wheat storage, but having regard to the difficulties of storing wheat otherwise than at the ports I think that some scheme of this kind might be considered. I certainly suggest that, in spite of the difficulties, we ought to see what can be done with a view of getting storage in these places. It is one of the most regrettable developments of recent years that there has been a tendency for corn mills inland to be scrapped and to be replaced by mills in dangerous proximity to the ports. I am extremely glad that the President of the Board of Trade answered by anticipation a question which I was going to press upon him, and that is the question of close co-ordination between distributing arrangements and storage accommodation on the one hand, and on the other hand the evacuation from the great centres because of air raids.
The criticisms that I have offered are not meant in any hostile sense but merely in order to stimulate the action which many hon. Members desire should be taken. I should like to advance a few constructive suggestions, and I return to the question of the general order of magnitude of food storage. I suggest it would be a reasonable aim to secure additional stocks beyond those originally in the country equivalent, if you take together


wheat, flour, sugar and canned goods, to a year's wheat consumption. That does not mean a year's supply of wheat, but the equivalent in food value if we take all these commodities together. I should like to know whether the general scheme of the Government more or less approximates to that order of magnitude.
There is one small point as regards forage. I would suggest that we should concentrate a great deal more upon human cereals than upon animal cereals, for the reason that consumption of cereals by animals is much more modifiable in time of war. On looking at the figures I find that whereas in 1913 we imported 8,000,000 tons of cereals for human consumption and 3,000,000 tons for animal consumption, in 1917 the human consumption had only been reduced from eight to seven million tons, whereas the quantities for animal consumption had been reduced from 3,000,000 to 1,500,000 tons. In a war we may be in such straits that we should have to slaughter a considerable number of animals, in which case we should not want as much forage. At the same time, if we had a margin in human food we could always convert it quickly into forage. I am assuming, as the right hon. Gentleman assumes, that while our imports are reduced they are not eliminated and, therefore, if we have a little margin in human food and not enough forage, we could at once divert the shipping which brought in wheat to bringing in forage instead. Therefore, I suggest that we should only arrange a very limited storage of forage as compared with food for human consumption.
I suggest too that the right hon. Gentleman should not make much use of the power to arrange for increased stocks on the farms, which is covered by the Bill, since traders also include producers. An increase of stocks on the farms would be extremely difficult to arrange administratively both in peace and in war time. The experience of the last war showed that other forms of stocking would be much more convenient from the point of view of distribution, both in arrangements before and in distribution afterwards. Next, I should like to suggest that, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the reasons for limiting the commodities to which the Bill might apply, he should consider some enlargement to other essential commodities, such as raw materials and pit props. I under-

stand his reasons, but, of course, it is possible to adopt a procedure intermediate between the present one, which would mean a completely new Bill, and the procedure of an Order not requiring a Resolution of Parliament. It would be possible to have a second part of the Schedule in which the Government would have power to acquire other commodities beyond those at present specified, subject to the making of an Order which would allow of a discussion in this House. Here again I say, always remembering the fact ahat we are dealing with the danger of a diminished importing capacity, that an importing capacity used for one purpose can be converted into another. If, theerfore, you have stored some commodities which would otherwise have to be imported in time of war, as a consequence of that you would be able at any time to utilise the ships which would have been needed to bring in these commodities for the purpose of bringing in food. Some of these commodities store a great deal better than others. If you had pit props already stored, which otherwise would have to be brought in during the war, you could use the ships which would have been used for bringing in pit props for bringing in food.
I should like to ask the President if he will see that the fullest possible use is made of the scientific work regarding the preservation of food stores which is being done by an official body, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and by unofficial bodies. I know that the Food (Defence Plans) Department in their annual report say that they are consulted as occasion arises, but from the information which reaches me I very much doubt whether adequate use is being made of the very valuable scientific work which is at the disposal of the Government. Lastly, may I make this suggestion? Would the Government consider, in addition to the arrangements they are making themselves for storage through the trade or by the acquisition of stocks of their own, encouraging that part of the public, who can afford and are able to do so, to lay in limited extra stocks in their own houses? I believe this would be a very valuable procedure, though it could not be universal. I think there are many people who could keep a month's supply, and it would be a good thing for many more people, particularly in areas which might have to


be evacuated quickly, to keep an iron ration for two or three days.
Lastly, I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade whether he will not put a great deal more drive into these preparations than has hitherto been shown. During 1936 and until these last purchases we have had a very great deal of planning of elaborate machinery for controlling food; but that is much easier to do than to get the food to control. I suggest that a great deal more drive is needed now, and I was hoping that the President would take a much more direct responsibility than I am sorry to say he is taking. I am sure that it will be more possible to get unity of all sections of the public in this sphere of passive defence than on any other sphere of the Government's policy. I suggest that if this can be done the visible spectacle of swift, competent and united action would be of great value as a deterrent against war and the stocks would be of great value if war should come.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Parker: Whilst. I should like to congratulate the Government on the introduction of this Bill I should also like to rub in the fact that it has been brought in three years after the matter was first raised in this House during the debates on the question whether there should be a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence or not. I know it is said that the Government have acted rapidly in making these particular purchases once they had made up their minds, but I think they should have taken action rather sooner than they did There is another reason for congratulating the Government, and that is, that for once they have been prepared to listen to the ideas put forward by hon. Members who have taken part in a Debate and to incorporate them in the Bill. I wish they were prepared to do that rather more often, when they had not a policy of their own. I think one may say that already the policy that has been adopted has had one good result. I think that in countries abroad such as Germany, it has had the effect of showing the people in authority that this country is preparing for all possible contingencies; and the fact that information exists in these countries that we are taking action is having a favourable effect and will, it is to be hoped, help to prevent a war.
I agree with the hon. Member for the Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) that the Government are taking wide powers in this Bill. I would like also to support him on the point that we ought to have a rather more detailed statement as to what the Government propose to do. In regard to the long-term policy we have had no information at all. I should like to raise a number of points in this connection beginning with the question of the storage of forage and fertilisers. How far are the Government going to use these powers to store forage and fertilisers? There is much talk in the report of the Food (Defence Plans) Department about an investigation and collection of information on the subject of the storage of forage, but there is no indication at all that they propose to do anything about it. I think we should be told something about the matter. In the last Debate I quoted figures showing the total tonnage of food produced by British agriculture in 1934. It was, 9,863,000 tons. I gave figures also of the imported raw materials used for feeding cattle, etc., which enabled that food to be produced in that year which amounted to 9,875,000 tons. The conclusion I drew from these figures was that in an emergency we should probably have to import foodstuffs rather than agricultural raw materials, of course, admitting the fact that foodstuffs would cost a great deal more than agricultural raw materials. These figures excited a great deal of controversy and a number of agriculturists wrote letters to the "Times," but they were unable to disprove my statement.
I should like to say that more recent figures support my case. Take, for example, the figures for potatoes which form one of the largest constituents in the tonnage of home produced foodstuffs. The output produced in this country in 1934 was 4,464,000 tons; in 1935, 3,765,000 tons; in 1936, 3,804,000 tons; and in 1937, 4,048,000 tons. There has been, therefore a considerable diminution in the total tonnage of food produced in this country. At the same time the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a question on 15th March last, gave a table for the years 1934 to 1936 which showed that there had been a considerable increase in the proportion imported of the principal foodstuffs consumed in the country, so on both sides you have figures which further support the statement I have made.


There has been a diminution in the quantity of food produced in this country and, on the other hand, an increase in the import of many foodstuffs.

Mr. Turton: Does the hon. Member suggest that the imports of potatoes have increased during this year?

Mr. Parker: No, I am referring to other foodstuffs. I think we ought to know not only what forage the Government propose to store, and what fertilisers, but we ought also to have some indication of the agricultural policy of the Government in this connection. The Ministry of Agriculture has not been brought into these discussions at all so far. In the last Debate, the Minister of Agriculture was quoted as having said in a recent speech "What fools we should all look if we built up an artificial system of food growing to guard against a war that may never happen." I think we ought to know whether the Minister of Agriculture still holds those views, or whether he has changed them. We ought to know the actual relations of the Minister of Agriculture with the Minister for the Coordination of Defence and with other Departments which work in connection with him. It might be extraordinarily important in a time of emergency.
I wish to ask a question about the places intended for storage. The Food Defence Plans Department states that it is proposed to use existing facilities as far as possible, and one assumes from the speech of the Minister that these will be in the safer parts of the country; but I think we ought to have some indication as to whether the Government propose to build storage plants, silos and so on, in places where they do not exist at the present time. The Government have taken wide powers, and I think they ought to tell us whether or not they propose to use them. For example, do they propose to build cold storage plants and warehouses at some of the Western ports, such as Falmouth, Milford Haven, Holyhead, or Workington? I think that precautions should be taken beforehand to meet any emergency that may arise, and that there should be accommodation at those ports which could be used in the event of war.
We have been given no indication as to whether the Minister of Transport has been brought into consultation in this matter. It is important that, if food is to be stored at some of the ports I have mentioned, there should be adequate communications between them and the industrial parts of the country. At Question Time yesterday, I asked whether any steps were being taken to provide an adequate first-class road from Falmouth to connect with the main road to the West of England. The reply of the Minister was that there are three roads in existence. If the Minister had been present now, I should have asked him whether he knew what those roads are like. The road from Falmouth connecting with the main road through Cornwall winds all the way round the inlets of the Fal, and goes through the narrow streets of Truro. It is essential that, if ports such as Falmouth or Milford Haven are to be used to store food, there should be first-class roads linking them up with the industrial parts of the country. In Germany they are building military roads; why not build some defence roads in this country? I think this is a question which should be gone into, and that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence should consider the matter and see that the Ministry of Transport works in conjunction with the other Departments under his supervision.
What are the provisions for controlling the storage that is taking place? On page 5 of the Report of the Food Defence Plans Department, it is stated that the policy of the Department is to ensure that supplies of essential foodstuffs at controlled prices are available to meet the requirements of all types of consumers in all parts of the country in an emergency. The lesson which we learnt from our experience in the War is the essential need collecting information about prices and margins before the emergency arises if price control is to be in any way effective. Sir William Beveridge, who had a great deal of experience in this matter during the War, has written a book about his experiences, and he makes it plain that the rise in the cost of food during the War—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Sea Fish Industry Act, 1938.
2. Scottish Land Court Act, 1938.
3. East Lothian Water Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
4. Royal Sheffield Infirmary and Hospital Act, 1938. 
5. Aldridge Urban District Council Act, 1938. 
6. Brixham Gas and Electricity Act, 1938. 
7. London Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1938. 
8. Bangor Corporation Act, 1938. 
9. West Surrey Water Act, 1938.

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES RESERVES BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Parker: I was saying that Sir William Beveridge makes it plain in his book that the rise in the cost of living during the War was in a large part due to profiteering in foodstuffs, and so on, which took place in the early days of the War owing to the fact that no costing investigations had been carried out beforehand. It is a great pity that the Government have always held up a census of distribution, because if that had been carried out it would have given the Government a good deal of material which would have been useful on this occasion. When Lord Rhondda took over the Ministry of Food in 1917 he had to institute a costing system, and accountants had to be appointed to go into the costs of firms in the food trades to decide what were reasonable profits. It is always difficult to decide what profits are reasonable, and if we are to avoid difficulties of that kind in a future emergency, it is highly desirable that this matter should be gone into before the danger arises. The board ought to see that it has a costing department which would be able to go into all questions associated with the cost of food and the profits now being made so that it would have the information available should an emergency arise.
I would like to quote one or two other examples of difficulties that arose before. The Food Controller fixed a price for grain which was in store for sale for human use, but no price was fixed for damaged grain. The result was that when the price of animal feeding stuffs went up, it became more remunerative to sell grain for animal feeding stuffs than for human consumption. A large proportion of the grain that was stored was then deliberately spoiled so that it could be sold for animal feeding stuffs. As a result Lord Rhondda had to fix prices for animal feeding stuffs and millers' offals which were below those for grain for human consumption. Is that problem being looked into now?
I do not wish to criticise any of the firms which are co-operating with the Government, but are the Government taking steps to see that the amounts which those firms have undertaken to store is always kept at the proper figure? Unless there is an adequate system of inspection we may find in the time of emergency that we had not the stores which these particular firms said that they would have. We cannot entirely trust to their good faith, and it is essential there should be adequate inspection to see that the stores which exist on paper are in existence in reality. If we are to prevent the main difficulties that arose in the last War it is essential that there should be an adequate control of supplies and a prevention of profiteering. That was only secured in the last War by the Government buying supplies themselves at the source and controlling them, allowing the persons who were manufacturing and distributing the food to handle them on commission for the services they rendered. That had to be done finally in order to cut out profiteering. Do the Government propose to do that in the event of an emergency? We on this side of the House would prefer them to do that now and actually own the food supplies all through. If, however, they are not prepared to do that in peacetime, we should like an assurance that they have the machinery ready for doing it should an emergency arise. I would also like the Minister to say a little more about the co-ordination between this service and the other departments I have mentioned, because I am sure the House would like further information on that point.
In conclusion I would like to raise once more the question of the Port and Transport Committee of the Ministry of Transport. When last we debated this matter I pointed out that there were no representatives of trade unions on that body as there were during the last War. There is considerable disquiet that trade union representatives have not been invited to assist on that Committee. They performed valuable service on that Committee in the last War, and we have never been told why they have not been included on the present committee. I hope that the Government will be more conciliatory in future in their advances to the trade unions when they ask their cooperation. We have seen the Government's approach to the Amalgamated Engineering Union in recent weeks, in which the Government have not shown the consideration they might have done. It would greatly help matters if the Government showed a little more consideration, and even elementary courtesy, when approaching trade unions for their co-operation in various State services at the present time.

6.21 p.m.

Major Sir George Davies: The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) who, I am sorry to see, is no longer in his place, who always speaks with authority on this subject which he has made peculiarly his own, found some difficulty in concealing his chagrin that during the period he had been criticising the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence for being merely a planner my right hon. Friend had been quietly proving himself a man of action. The hon. Member came, as he told us, prepared to strike, but decided to relieve his anxiety purely by wounding. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) clearly and quite naturally found his political conscience so strained at having to approve of anything this Government had done, that he was compelled to drag in such outside considerations as the foreign policy of other countries, Spain, and State trading and enterprise. It is a great satisfaction to have a Measure which has support, sometimes full and sometimes limited, from every quarter of the House, because this is a question which has caused a good deal of anxiety in many minds. It is gratifying to think that in the outcome those who may be classed as the "fear-to-

treaders" have been wiser than the "rush-inners."
There are two points to which I should like to draw attention. One has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans) who, in his peroration, gave my right hon. Friend some good advice on a matter which, I am sure, had never occurred to him before, that he should employ honest men who knew their job rather than dishonest ones who did not. What I am concerned to speak about is the Schedule, which seems to me unnecessarily restricted. It is confined primarily to what I would call the three F's—food, feed and fertilisers. It occurs to those of us who are uninitiated and the ignorant that this would have been an opportunity, without necessarily guaranteeing the taking of any definite action, to have had a somewhat wider Schedule. The hon. Member for Cardigan mentioned one or two commodities, such as copper and lead. I should naturally like to see the Minister purchase 10 or 20 million tons of sugar, but of course I am interested in sugar. There are two objectives of this legislation. One is the direct provision in case of emergency of commodities of which we have certain supplies in the country, and the other is an indirect provision for reducing protanto the calls on our shipping at such a time so that it can be more definitely utilised for the transport of those commodities which have not been stored to any extent. There are certain vital commodities which in bulk are comparatively small but are of importance. There is, for example, emery, which is essential in munition works and cannot be produced in this country.
While the whole point of the procedure under which the Government have already operated has been quietly, without upsetting the market, to build up stores of certain commodities one would have thought that a somewhat wider Schedule would have given them the opportunity in the same quiet and simple way of getting stores of those commodities which do not bulk very large in their tonnage but which are important to us. The Schedule is restricted to articles of food, and I should have thought some wider wording would have been desirable for possible use in the future in order to enable other commodities to be obtained. On the question of distribution, the Minister pointed out some serious diffi-


culties which arose in the distribution of wheat from the ports, and he said that there was not the same difficulty in the case of sugar as distribution had already been made or was in process of being made. The question of wheat is undoubtedly difficult; and I cannot help feeling that, the ports would obviously be the places which would receive the first attention from enemy aircraft. It might possibly be a penny-wise-and-a-pound-foolish policy if, even at considerable expense, the policy of distribution of these commodities was not kept in the forefront of the minds of those who are responsible for carrying out this policy. I would like a little more assurance and argument to justify the leaving of these great accumulations of wheat in vulnerable positions around our coasts.
From that arises what I thought was a pertinent suggestion from the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) with reference to road transport. If it is decided that these stores are to be left at the ports, then facilities for their rapid distribution become all the more important. I am satisfied that that point has not escaped the mind of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, but it does no harm to emphasise it, so that, as the hon. Member opposite said, the development of road transport in this country might become a matter of semi-passive defence in contrast with the construction of definitely military roads in Continental countries of which we hear so much. I have wished to draw attention to those two points only and have no desire to delay proceedings any longer, but I would say what a gratification it is not only to those in this Chamber but to the people throughout the country, to see that there is such unanimity of opinion upon the desirability of this Measure and over the terms in which it has been presented.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin: I notice with surprise that no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture has been on the Treasury Bench this evening, and I find it difficult to understand his absence seeing that the Title of this Bill is "Essential Commodities Reserves Bill," and that in the Schedules the first commodity mentioned is the food of man. I notice, further, that the Minister of Agriculture is one of

those backing the Bill, and, therefore, I cannot understand why some representative of the Ministry has not attended. The House is dealing now with a problem which can be put in the form of a question: In case of war how are our people to be fed? This Bill is part of the answer. It says, first of all, "We will gain information from traders as to essential commodities," and, secondly, "We will collect and maintain reserves of food." I ask the House to estimate the problem which it is tackling to-day, the problem, mainly, of keeping starvation away from the people of this country in case of war, and to consider how far this little Bill goes towards meeting it. In my respectful submission this Bill is wholly inadequate for the purpose. It is just as though the Government had said yesterday, "Our contribution to the national defence of this country is contained in our air-raid precautions. We say nothing and we do nothing about our fighting services. We leave them in just the same state as they were some years ago."
My criticism of this Bill is that it is a plain delusion as long as the policy of the Government continues to discourage the home farmer from producing more food. As I apprehend, it will be more difficult in any future war to import food from abroad. We shall then have to depend upon the immediate expansion of home production I was surprised indeed that the Minister made no reference to the possibility of storing food upon the farms. I know that it would be very difficult to keep wheat stored in ricks on the farms, but he made no reference at all to storing food by way of keeping additional stock on the farm. It is my submission to the House that this country is at present wholly unprepared for agricultural expansion, and that we could nowhere near meet this problem. What was the position at the end of the War? I will read a quotation from the speech made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in the Caxton Hall on 21st October, 1919:
 I remember in those days how sorry I was that our great enemy had not imitated our example in reference to agriculture. I had wished in my heart that they had pursued the same policy. I say now that if Germany had pursued the same agricultural policy as we pursued, neglecting her agriculture as we neglected ours, Germany would have collapsed within a year. You cannot take any more chances of that kind for this


country. You cannot do it. We came near to disaster. We got through, but it undoubtedly crippled us. We could have put more into our shipping, we could have put more into our effort. It crippled the effort of our armaments. We could not spare shipping for them. We had to bring food here when it might have been grown on the premises.
What is the position to-day? Are we or are we not better able to meet the menace of starvation? In my submission we are not as well placed as we were in 1914. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) has just shown the House, by figures which have not been challenged, that in 1934 agriculture used more tonnage of imported foodstuffs and fertilisers than the total tonnage of our agricultural output. since 1914 our tonnage of steam and motor shipping has declined by 1,500,000 tons, although we have 4,000,000 more mouths to feed.
What are the facts as regards acreage? since 1914 the arable acreage has declined by 16 per cent., the acreage of crops and grass declined by 8 per cent., wheat declined by 2 per cent., barley declined by 46 per cent., oats declined by 28 per cent., potatoes declined by 4 per cent., turnips and swedes declined by 47 per cent. On the other hand, the livestock have increased. Cattle have increased by n per cent., sheep by 2 per cent., and pigs by 47 per cent. The net result has been an increase in livestock and a decrease in the food raised at home on which we feed. The only possible answer to these figures is that we should start now to increase home production.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must keep to the Question before the House. It would not be right to use this as an occasion for a Debate upon agriculture. The object of the Bill is the maintenance of reserves of commodities.

Mr. Hopkin: With respect, I was trying to argue that it would be far safer and better if those reserves were built up upon the farm. I was about to observe that the Minister could improve this Bill if he were to enlarge Clause 1, which gives power to make inquiries, to the extent of having a complete survey of the countryside, in order to find out not only from the traders but also from the farmers what they are capable of producing and how far they can meet the problem. I would also suggest that the present policy of the Government of restriction as regards sugar

beet, wheat, barley, and oats ought now to be abandoned. It may be that a case for restriction can be made out if the object is to build up orderly marketing, but in face of the shortage that policy is obviously unsuitable. I will take two examples, milk and potatoes. In the proposals put forward in the White Paper the standard quantity of milk upon which a minimum price of approximately 5d. in summer and 6d. in winter is fixed is 250,000,000 gallons—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is obviously going far beyond the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Hopkin: May I complete what I have to say by pointing out that a suggestion has been put forward by Mr. Foster, of the Milk Marketing Board, that the best way in which we could store food for the future would be by in creasing the cow population now by 1,000,000. He suggests that it would be a tremendous help in any emergency. Aeroplanes are not more important than food, and steps are being taken, and quite rightly, to put down plant for the production of aeroplanes on a large scale. In the same way, with a view to the production of food in the future it would be just as safe and certainly just as wise to secure an additional 1,000,000 cows as soon as possible. In the late War agriculture met the situation well. The number of cattle in 1914 was about 12,000,000 and by 1918 12,300,000—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed along those lines in a discussion upon this Bill.

Mr. Hopkin: Then I will say, in conclusion, that it seems to me that there is a greater responsibility thrown upon the farmers of this country, and that they ought to be encouraged.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The maintenance of a reserve of foodstuffs and other essential commodities would, I submit, be possible in two places, either in the silos or store houses, or in the soil and on the farm, and it is a curious fact that until the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) got up nobody had dealt,_ with the second of those alternatives, although under the Four-Year plan in Germany General Goering has been building up his reserves of essential commodities by


an extension of the growing of foodstuffs in Germany. How far I can proceed with this argument within the Rules of Order is a matter of some doubt, after the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
It is clear that the Bill includes the farmer as one from whom information may be obtained and who may be requested to store foodstuffs on the farm. That is clear from the definition in Clause 6, but to what extent do the Government intend to ask the farmers of the country to store on the farm the foodstuffs required? There is no great difficulty in asking the farmers to have a carry-over of their wheat in their ricks from the usual time when they sell, in October, until May or June in the following year, and by that time you would have got a reserve of essential commodities at a much lower price than by the method of buying wheat, on which the Government have embarked during the last few months. I welcome the Government's endeavour to make us self-sufficient in time of war by purchasing any commodities that we could not produce in this country. I understand that, apart from the Loch Less monster, there was no possibility of getting whale oil in this country save by Government action, but I am not at all happy about the problems of wheat and sugar. I hope that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence will spend time in co-ordinating those two branches of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture.
Under the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is, on the one hand, buying stores of wheat; on the other hand, by legislation now in force, producers are told not to produce more than 36,000,000 cwts. of wheat in a year. Again, the Government may have to store potatoes, but if the producer grows another acre of potatoes he has to suffer a penalty. Such regulation no doubt preserves the balance in agriculture, but we want to know how that policy and our Defence policy are to be co-ordinated. The time has come for the Government to appeal to producers to limit the amount that the Government will spend under this Bill by themselves producing more. In the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) agriculture could not fill the gap and the Minister of Agriculture had made that

quite clear; I do not know that the Minister did so. The Minister of Agriculture said at Tring in March that the Government were putting into operation a switch-over to emergency production. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to tell us whether the Bill is a part of the plan that the Minister of Agriculture spoke of at Tring, and if it is not, whether we are to expect another Bill in the near future that will deal with this side of production.
One of the important aspects of this Bill which intimately concern agricultural production is that the Government may take power to buy reserves of fertilisers. At the present time the price of fertilisers is high and, if the Government take such power, they may raise the price still further. I would rather see those fertilisers placed in the land where they will give their results in due season rather than the Government should buy them up and so prevent farmers from using them now. The President of the Board of Trade says that he would use the fertilisers at the outbreak of war in order to achieve increased production, but most of those fertilisers are used on grassland, and take not one year but two years before they give any reward. I suggest that the Government ought not to embark upon a policy which will mean a delay in increasing the production from grassland, especially when there are men like Professor Stapledon going round saying that 16,000,000 acres of grassland are being wasted in this country.
Very dangerous counsel on the subject of feeding was given to the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). He said: "Do not bother about feeding stuffs. It is far better to get food, and the feeding stuffs can be bought later. Food and foodstuffs would be interchangeable." I do not know whether the hon. Member would relish a diet of linseed cake. The feeding-stuff problem is very acute. The cattle population has increased tremendously since the last War, and we are far more dependent upon foreign feeding stuffs than we were in 1914. The barley acreage has dropped from 1,500,000 acres to 791,000 acres, and we are importing at the moment large quantities of maize and linseed cake from abroad—far larger quantities than we imported in 1914.

Sir A. Salter: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite seized my point, which was that inasmuch as we are assuming that we shall require more imports, we shall very quickly have a margin of food which we shall not need for a time. My suggestion is that we should use it by transferring it to agriculture to fill up the deficiency. We know more or less how much human food we shall need, but we do not know anything like as well what food we should need for our animals. I suggest that we concentrate much more upon the human food which we shall need in any case, and that we should also increase our stock of fertilisers.

Mr. Turton: And in the meantime the poor cattle would die. The difficulty which my hon. Friend does not seem to appreciate is you have to feed your stock. He seems to believe that they could survive in the lush pastures near Oxford.

Sir A. Salter: It is a matter of time. I am not suggesting that we could get it done in one day.

Mr. Turton: My hon. Friend talked about storage of food and used as a reason why you should no longer want to store feeding stuffs that in the last War we imported less and less feeding stuffs. The reason was that we had then a large acreage under barley and homegrown foodstuffs. We have not that to-day. In 1914 we were importing some 34,000,000 cwts. of maize, but to-day we are importing 79,000,000 cwts., more than double the quantity. If a war started and interfered with the importation of maize, the whole of English agricultural production would finish at once, unless we do something now to fill the gap. That is why I hope that the Government and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence will pay special attention to the supply of feeding stuffs in this country.
With most of the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University I was in entire disagreement, but on one point I thought we might reach some little agreement. That was on the question of secrecy. I am certain that the Government are right and that you should not say where your commodities are stored, when you are going to purchase, and how much you are going to purchase,

nor should you say when or how much you are going to sell. I disagree with Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 of the Bill. But when you have effected your purchases it is wise to let the country know how much you have purchased. The great benefit of the Bill is that it is a reassurance. The country wants to know that it is adequately protected both by reserves of commodities which the Government have wisely bought and by its agricultural production. People want to know those things, and they would be far more reassured than one would be led to expect by the hon. Member for Oxford University. He seems to dislike the Bill because the Government have adopted exactly what he has been pressing upon them to do; the Government have actually adopted his suggestions, and he feels rather puzzled and says: "All those fine words have been wasted."

Sir A. Salter: I said very definitely in two or three words that I welcomed the Bill. I do not know how the hon. Member got the idea that I disliked the Bill or was opposed to it.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member made a speech of rather more words than three, containing criticism and innuendo. His speech was rather in the nature of carping criticism than of welcome and praise. Posterity will read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the words he used and will judge what his attitude was.
We should be told how much the Government have purchased of these commodities, because such information would have a beneficial effect. We always know how much wheat there is in the world. The fact that we do not know how much the Government have in reserve may tend to keep prices up in a time of panic, while seeing how much the Government have purchased would have a tendency to lower prices in time of panic. I believe the information would be valuable. I regret that there are many aspects of the Bill which, by the Rules of Order laid down, it is impossible for me to examine. I regret that the Bill deals only with one very small part of a very important subject. It confers wide powers on the Government that will be available in any emergency, and for that reason I wholeheartedly welcome it and thank the Ministers responsible for


the provision which is being made to keep this country secure in time of emergency or war.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. A. Edwards: One item which he thought should be stored by the Government was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Sir G. Davies), and I hope that the Minister will take note of it. He referred to emery. Many hon. Members will agree how necessary emery is. to industry. During the last War I was able to discover a by-product in this country that took the place of emery, and it was very important for the Minister of Munitions that we were able to use that by-product at the time. This matter seems small, but emery could be stored very easily. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) spoke about pit-props and urged that the storage of pit-props would relieve the colliery proprietors during a time of war. I hope the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence will consider the possibility of storing as much as possible of vital commodities in advance so that we can have all the tonnage possible available for the conveyance of food.
Hon. Members have been talking about different articles, and I want to talk about pig iron, because it is absolutely vital to the safety of the country. If the Minister will make some calculation of the number of ships that will be required for conveying iron ore in time of war, he will have some idea how much he can contribute to the safety of the country to-day by converting that iron ore into pig iron. If he had lived in the Cleveland district when bombs were being dropped during the last War, he would have realised how vital it seemed to our enemies, at any rate, to put blast furnaces out of commission. If the Minister does not take this matter into consideration, I believe he will be almost as great a menace to the country as an enemy bomber. We have a tremendous capacity to-day, when furnaces are being deliberately put out, for storing immense quantities of pig iron, which does not deteriorate as other commodities do. It seems almost criminal that, while we are talking about reserves of vital commodities, we should be allowing blast furnaces to go out of commission—20 up to the time when I drew the Minister's attention to

it, 10 more since I spoke about it and more going out next week.
I appeal to the Minister to take this a little more seriously. I am profoundly disturbed at the indifference of the Department in thinking that we can allow furnaces to go out of commission week after week, thousands of men being put out of work, when we could occupy them and help the trade of the country at a moment when a depression is threatened. The imports of pig iron in a single month involve the employment of 10,000 men, taking into consideration miners and limestone, and yet it seems to be of no importance to the Department that these men should be thrown out of work, and they talk about storing other things which would be useless if we ran short of iron. The matter has been dealt with on some occasions in a frivolous manner, as if it did not matter, and as though they had not the slightest knowledge of the vital part that iron plays in armaments. The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gave me a perfectly ludicious reply. He said there was not much pig iron used in the production of aeroplane frames. What an answer! As though any of us thought we use aeroplane frames made of cast iron! Everything else that goes into the production of armaments is dependent on iron. Thirty blast furnaces have gone out of commission since December and the Minister appeals to men in my constituency to vary their trade union conditions. He talks about the dilution of labour to help in the production of armaments.

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Member is in error. The suggestion of the consideration of dilution came from the employers at a conference into which the unions went with the employers.

Mr. Edwards: I think the pressure must have come from above, because it was thought it would be vitally necessary to have some dilution if we are to catch up with our programme. Is it really good enough that we should be asking one section of men to agree to dilution of labour and throwing another out of employment? It puts a great strain on the patriotism of the workmen. They wonder whether the Department really thinks there is a danger. If there is no real danger, why are we spending these immense sums of money on the production of armaments and in storing vital raw materials, and if


there is a necessity, and the expenditure is justified, what right have we to allow those men at this most important stage of our rearmament plans to be thrown out of work? They are entitled to be considered. I hope the Minister will address himself to this question and consider whether it would not be wise at this stage to be storing up these supplies of pig-iron and releasing as much shipping as necessary to be conveying foodstuffs in the event of war.
There is another matter I should like to mention, though perhaps it is rather late in the day. We should help ourselves and help the steel industry if the Government would reconsider the vital matter of the production of oil from coal. You are going to import oil, using valuable shipping to bring it to this country in time of war, and store it. We have not heard how much it is proposed to store or how long it is going to carry us along, but if we started now the erection of more oil from coal plant it would help the steel industry. Rolling mills are going out and steel plants are going out. It is difficult for people to believe that the Government really think there is a national emergency when they recklessly allow these plants to go out of production. If they considered the question of oil from coal they would find that it would be well worth while erecting another hydrogenation plant. That would give a little stimulus to the steel industry, and now would be the time to get the steel, which six months ago they could not get. I should like the Minister to give a reply and to deal properly, fairly and reasonably with the vital matter of the blast furnaces in my district.

7.10 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I believe that the principle underlying the Bill is accepted by everyone in the House, and outside the House it will breed a great amount of confidence that we shall not again find ourselves in the same position in which we found ourselves on a previous occasion. Reference has been made to a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in confidence to commissioners and sub-commissioners dealing with the improvement of the conditions of the production of food. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Go home and do all you possibly can to force people to pro-

duce at home, but on no account let the public know what I have told you." Those were very serious words. He knew that, if the public generally knew the position we were in, it would have caused a panic with which it would have been very difficult for the Government of the day to cope. I believe this Bill will give confidence to the public, and I accept it on that ground. It is to do two things— to regulate action that has already been taken with regard to certain commodities, and to regulate action that may be taken in future. But there are two points that I should like to put to the Minister. In Clause 2, the word "trader" appears. The definition shows that "trader" includes producer. I should like to know whether the producer at home is to be in entirely the same category, and is to have the same opportunities as the producer abroad.
The storage of food is very different from the storage of any other commodity, because food is perishable and cannot be stored indefinitely. This is recognised in the Bill, because it refers to disposals from time to time which are only to take place after other legislation has been passed. We cannot say what form that legislation will take, but you will have to be careful when you are going to make these dispersals of stocks, and you will have to see that very few people know when they are taking place, because it will have a disastrous effect upon prices if there is public knowledge as to when large sales are to take place. Prices depend upon supply and demand and, if you have fluctuation in supply and demand, you will have fluctuation in prices. That will be disastrous both for producer and consumer. I am not one of those who ask for high prices, which I believe cause, and have caused, hardship upon consumers, and in the long run they do not do the producer any good. High prices for a short time followed by low prices would be very disastrous. Neither do I ask for low prices, which might occur if you had a very large distribution of stocks at a particular time, and which would bring prices down disastrously to the producer. The consumer might have some sort of temporary advantage from low prices, but even in his interest low prices are not desirable. It is prices at a reasonably steady level that are to be desired for all. I should like an assurance that great care will be taken with regard to the disposal


of these stocks to see that it has not a disastrous effect upon prices, which would affect not only producers but consumers.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I want to say a few words in support of the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Edwards). He has done great service in calling attention to this matter, and I want to reinforce as far as I can the arguments he has put forward. The fault in this Bill appears to lie in a few extra words in the Schedule. If it had said:
 Any commodity which in the opinion of the Board of Trade may be required as food for man, forage for animals or fertiliser for land, and any raw material,
it would have been good. But the extra words:
 from which such commodity could be produced 
limit the raw materials to such raw materials as are employed in producing the articles which have been mentioned before. That, to my mind, is an entirely unnecessary limitation. Even in time of war, man does not live by bread alone, and, indeed, if I may give another quotation:
 Iron, cold iron, is the master of men all.
Iron then becomes one of the most essential of commodities. The Minister has given us his own reason for the limitation which he has put upon himself. Ministers are not always fond of limiting their powers, and I wish my right hon. Friend had not done so in this case. His reason was that he feared that, if he had cast his net wider, the trades that might be affected would have been in some way disturbed, that they would not have known what would be the effect of the Government's action in accumulating reserves. My answer to that is that he himself has grappled with the difficulty in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2, where he has provided his own precautions against accumulated stores being let out on the market so as to disorganise it. He has taken precautions with regard to the commodities which are included in the Schedule, and I should have thought that this provision would have been equally effective if it were applied to other commodities, and that, in view of the assurance that these precautions were being

taken by the Minister, there would not have been any disorganisation of trade.

Mr. Stanley: May I call attention to the other side of the question? Disorganisation would be caused by an industry expecting a purchase which the Government never intended to make.

Mr. Griffith: If the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a purchase which the Government never intends to make, I am extremely surprised to see the provision. I am not asking that the Minister should take powers with regard to improbable commodities which would not be required in time of war, and he might if he likes qualify the words "raw material" by some other words, such as:
raw material of such a nature as to be essential in time of war.
He need not have tied himself down as strictly as he has done. If he did that, there would be no disorganisation at all. Has he had any representations from the trade that they are apprehensive that they might be included in the Bill, or that the use of words wide enough to include pig iron would involve disorganisation? If he has not, I should have thought that the only argument he used would fall to the ground. Naturally, my hon. Friend and I are keen on this matter from the point of view of our constituencies. I do not attempt to deny that; if the case of Middlesbrough were not represented by us, it would be unrepresented in this Debate. But there is at the same time a real national interest in this matter. We have already seen, in the last few months, a time at which, oddly enough, it was very hard to get essential products of this kind. Then the situation changed. I should have thought that if the Government, in a reasonable spirit and showing proper foresight, accumulated such stocks as might reasonably be thought necessary, they would be able to ease out these fluctuations in the market, and that, so far from having any disturbing effect, it would have a calming and soothing effect upon trade. Certainly a crisis like the temporary crisis which occurred a little time ago, when it was hard for people to get materials that they wanted, would not occur at what might be a disastrous moment in time of war. Therefore, I hope that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, or whoever replies to the Debate, will try to give my


hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough a rather more sufficient and detailed answer on this particular product than we have so far received.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I hope that the two right hon. Gentlemen concerned will not think me discourteous if I begin with this observation: If a company trading for gain were to be formed, the chairman of directors of which was my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, the managing director my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and the other directors officials of the Board of Trade; if that company were to issue a prospectus which stated that it proposed to trade on a large scale in any commodity which in their opinion might be required as food for man, forage for animals, or fertiliser for land, and if I were invited to take shares in that company, I should decline emphatically. I should decline for this very simple reason, that I should expect to lose a considerable portion of any money that I put into the company. I make that observation, not desiring in any way to disparage the great qualities which have brought the two right hon. Gentlemen to the very important positions which they now hold, but because they would be engaging on a very large scale in very complicated and difficult operations for which they were quite unqualified by any previous experience that they had had. To some extent, under the provisions of this Bill, that is a risk which the taxpayer will have to run in so far as the Government engage in large purchases of these various commodities.
There is a further objection, to which the President of the Board of Trade has himself called attention, namely, that, in so far as these purchases are made, there is bound to be considerable dislocation in the trades concerned. Those who were in the House when the President of the Board of Trade made his speech may remember that I ventured to make an interjection with regard to Sub-section (3) of Clause 2, asking my right hon. Friend why it should be thought necessary for the greatest secrecy to be observed before purchases were made, and the greatest publicity to be observed before sales were made. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) that the answer which the President then gave could not be con-

sidered adequate. I hope he will reconsider that Sub-section. I cannot help thinking that the Government are under a misapprehension—that, having been afraid that the House might think they were asking for very wide powers and might desire to limit them, they have put in that Sub-section in order to reassure the House. I think it would be very much better out of the Bill. If we are to give the Government authority to make purchases now, let us also give them now authority to sell these commodities when it seems wise to do so. I can imagine nothing more hampering to them in endeavouring to dispose of any stocks they may have than the fierce publicity which will be caused by their coming to this House and asking for special powers to dispose of those stocks. I hope that perhaps at a later stage the Government may see fit to strike that Sub-section out.
Having ventured to call attention to certain dangers which, as I see it, are inherent in the Bill, I should like now to say that I agree with others who have already spoken that in fact such powers are necessary; but I hope very much that they will be regarded as powers to be kept in reserve. In my view, the most important power given in the Bill is the power given in Sub-section (1) of Clause 2, by which the Government may enter into arrangements with traders in the different trades concerned to assist those traders to increase their storage capacity and to increase the stocks which they hold. I feel that that is much the better plan for dealing with this difficulty. When I say that I regard it as necessary that the Government should be given these powers to purchase, I have in mind the fact that this will give the Government a bargaining weapon of great force. If they have a difficulty in getting any particular industry to assist them on reasonable terms, they can turn round and say, "If you will not do it, we will do it ourselves." From that point of view I think the powers are desirable, but I hope very much that they will only be used as a last resort.
May I give an example to explain what I mean? Supposing that one of us desired to enter into some big transaction in foodstuffs, and we had the opportunity of having that transaction carried out for us by someone like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough or the hon.


Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon), with the great trading organisations which they have behind them and with which they are in daily contact; and that on the other hand we were offered, as an alternative, the services of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence or the President of the Board of Trade; although, in spite of the fact that, having regard to the rate of remuneration, it was considered suitable for Secretaries of State, the latter might in the first instance be the cheaper method, I venture to suggest that the employment of gentlemen connected with these great trading organisations would probably in the long run be more advantageous.

Mr. Stanley: I think it is only fair to recall to the House, when these comparisons are made, that the Government admitted that frankly, and that, in the three instances in which we have already made these purchases, we have made the fullest use of those who, we know, know much more about the matter than we do ourselves.

Mr. Lewis: I submit that that is not at all a fair answer. I listened closely to my right hon. Friend, and I did not understand him to say that he had made arrangements whereby these various expert persons, in the course of their business, should increase their stocks and storage capacity, but that he had merely employed them as agents to carry out his wishes. That is a very different thing. I hope very much that the method of encouraging the trade themselves to do these things, with Government assistance, will be followed, rather than the direct method of purchase by the Government. To sum up that point, I would say that, if stocks are to be accumulated, it is better that they should be accumulated in the hands of the various trades concerned, and that only as a last resort should they be accumulated in the hands of the Government themselves. When my right hon. Friend says, as he did in his speech, that everyone is agreed that the Government should accumulate stocks, I think he makes a mistake. What everyone is agreed about is that the country should accumulate stocks, which is not at all the same thing.
There are one or two minor points on which I should like to touch very briefly. Power is taken to require returns, and

obviously that is an essential feature of the Bill. The returns are very easy to ask for, but often very troublesome to make, and I hope we shall have some assurance from the Government that this power to seek returns will not be unreasonably used and that it will be confined to those cases where substantial stocks are normally held by the traders concerned. With regard to the Schedule, there has been a certain amount of criticism that the Schedule is not wide enough, and it has been argued that it should include other things besides the articles therein prescribed. I do not share that view. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that on wider grounds it is most desirable to limit the Schedule as he has limited it, but now that he has limited it I would have liked him to have given it to us in greater detail. If hon. Members read the Schedule carefully, they will see that a prolonged list of articles could come under it, and I suggest that on the ground that it is always better for Parliament to settle these things where possible, and not to leave it for subsequent legislation to do, it would be better for these articles to be named in the Schedule.
There is only one observation that I want to make on the subject of the purchases already made. I was somewhat puzzled by the reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the question of wheat. I understood him to say that the Government had arranged to purchase certain quantities of wheat through certain firms which he named, and that they have further arranged with those firms that they were still to hold stocks as large as they would have done without taking into consideration the Government stocks. Are we to understand, therefore, that they have made arrangements with those firms for their storage capacity to be increased? If not, I do not see how the Government can accomplish all that they hope to accomplish. Take, for example, a miller who has a storage capacity which is often partly or largely empty, but which is there because at certain times the miller thinks it wise that it should be full. If you are going to occupy part of that storage capacity by Government stores, you will limit that miller's opportunity for carrying the stocks which under certain circumstances he might himself carry, and I should like some definite answer to the question whether the storage facilities of those firms which have undertaken this


wheat business on behalf of the Government have or have not been increased.
In conclusion, I would only say that, obviously, the Bill, important though it is, cannot be regarded as more than offering a mitigation of our difficulties in the event of war. There are other methods— I will not attempt to put them in their relative importance—by which the Government could help us to face the danger which may be ahead of us, and which seems all too near, such as measures of rearmament, encouragement of agriculture, encouragement of the Mercantile Marine, and consequent encouragement of shipbuilding. Those are matters which for the most part lie outside the purview of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, but they do not lie outside the purview of the Government, and I hope the Government will not regard this Bill as more than one part, and not even a very large part, of their task in endeavouring to make us, as far as human foresight can, safe in the event of our being attacked.

7.35 P.m.

Mr. Sexton: I take it that this Bill is part of the Government's preparations for feeding the nation in the event of war. I know that the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) has gone outside of that in discussing the question of pig iron, but I am more concerned with the pig than with the iron, so that I shall direct my attention mainly to the food part of this Bill. The supply of food is as essential to defence as is the supply of force. It is fundamental if we are attacked that not only the men in the Services but the civilians too should be fed, because I can imagine the unrest which would be caused by the fear of famine. It nearly arose during the last War. In that War I was on the food control committee for my district, and I know how near we were sometimes to not being able to supply the people with any food at all. If this Bill does, as I believe it does, something which will guarantee stocks of supplies and equitable shares for all the people in the country) and if it does something towards controlling prices and stopping rampant profiteering, I believe the Bill is a good Bill. In the last War the Government instituted a system of food control, but it took such a long time to fructify that for 18 months of that food control food

supplies, food prices, and food distribution in this country were in a state of chaos. Even after the Food Control Supply Committee had been set up, owing to the long delay in the operation of that food control, it was only just beginning to make itself felt towards the end of the War.
I have in my hand a very important and a very informative document which has been issued, namely, the Food Defence Plans Department's report, and may I congratulate the authors of that report on the excellent way in which they have done their work? I have read the report through with very great interest. It deals largely with the question of food supplies, and in my opinion every Member of the House of Commons ought to read it. In this report we are not told much about the storage of food envisaged in this Bill, because Sir Ernest Gowers has been making an exhaustive inquiry into the whole matter and the work has been handed over to the Food Defence Plans Department; hence, I take it, this Bill that we now have before us. The Bill has two purposes, first, to obtain such information as is possible; secondly, to create reserves in all these essential commodities. In order to obtain the information, you must, according to the terms of the Bill, go to the traders, and some doubt has been expressed as to the work thus imposed upon the traders. The Bill will compel them to give information—not, in my opinion, that that was necessary, because on page 28 of the report which I have mentioned it says:
 Trade associations and individual traders in every branch of the food trades have co-operated to the fullest possible extent in these inquiries. The Department has no power to compel traders to make returns either of the stocks they hold or of any other matter connected with their business; nevertheless in several of the inquiries 95 per cent. and sometimes even 100 per cent. of the public authorities and firms to whom questionnaires were sent have responded.
I would like to pay a tribute here to those traders and associations who have so nobly assisted without compulsion, and now that they are to be compelled I feel sure that they will still render all possible assistance. Not only has information to be obtained from the traders relating to the stocks that they hold, the output capacity of manufacturing plants, and the storage space available, but this Bill pro-


vides that the Government shall create reserves, and for this purpose it induces the traders to increase their own stores and to improve their storage, and it enables the Government to purchase stocks to be held by the Board of Trade. If the Bill passes and these two main parts of the Bill are really carried out, I believe we shall have taken a very valuable step forward against the time of danger, if it should ever come to this country.
Now for one or two slight criticisms of the Bill itself. In Clause 2, Sub-section (1), it talks about commodities which are "held by him," that is, the trader, and in Subsection (3) it talks about commodities which are "held by them," meaning the Board of Trade. I should like to know, after you have induced the trader to augment the stocks "held by him," what his position is in periods of deterioration. Will he receive from the Board compensation for loss? I emphasise the point, because Sub-section (1) emphasises the stocks "held by him," and Sub-section (3) emphasises the stocks "held by them," the Board of Trade. As regards Sub-section (3), doubt has been expressed about the unloading of the existing superfluous stocks. Surely, if we can trust the buyers to buy in secret, we should be able, without this Sub-section at all, to trust the sellers to sell in secret so that the Government will not lose anything by that.
One slight quibble, shall I say? I find no interpretation of "fertiliser" given, yet the word "fertiliser" is mentioned in the Schedule. Some hon. Members have said, "Extend the Schedule," others have said, "Limit it further," and still others have said, "Leave it as it is." I would have liked to have seen it extended to include many other essential commodities known to the Board of Trade and the Government. I think that if the list had been made long enough and these other things had been included now, it would have saved our having to include them later on. Speaking for myself, I welcome this endeavour. Some people say that it is belated, but I do not mind that. Some people say that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is a dreamer of Israel, but I believe that he is the practical man who will eventually find corn in Egypt.

7.44 P.m.

Mr. V. Adams: The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) courageously expressed a preference for pigs over iron. I wish to commend to the attention of the Government the two matters of the extraction of oil from coal and the increase of our supplies of potential foodstuffs. These are two matters which have already been elaborated, and I will not, therefore, speak of them in detail. In his most agreeable speech my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Sir G. Davies) declared that in his view the "fear-to-treaders" had been proved wiser than the "rush-iners." No doubt that is a doctrine which is fostered in the Whips' Office, which has been by no means enriched by the resignation of the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil. But if, on this matter, some of us rushed in, I do not think we need feel any regret for having helped to cause the Government to move. What else are we elected to do except to rush in with arguments and other legitimate means of pressure? Indeed, I would say that the measures which the Government have taken and are taking are, at least partly, due to those external goads by which the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has been pricking and stimulating the Government ever since he became a Member of this House.
As one who has felt anxiety about food storage I welcome the Bill. Frankly, I am grateful for it. If I may borrow a word from the speech of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans), I am glad that we have succeeded in so far "stampeding" the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I recognise that the purchases had to be made secretly in order to prevent the price rising and to avoid warning a possible enemy. To-day in answering the question which I put to him, the President of the Board of Trade did not deal with the estimated cost. But the cost is, I venture to say, of fundamental importance to the whole scheme. It governs the possibility of food storage. In his Budget statement on 26th April, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
 The Government decided early this year that at the right moment they would buy sufficient supplies of wheat, whale oil and sugar to ensure that the stocks in this country shall be maintained at a level sufficient for the needs of the civil population during the early months of an emergency.


A little later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
 Apart from these transactions, some additional provision is likely to be needed during the year for other purchases where secrecy is less essential, and also for Air-Raid Precautions. Weighing these facts, and remembering at the same time the possibility that there may be savings for me on the Civil Estimates as a whole, I reached the conclusion that I must provide the sum of £10,000,000 as a margin for Civil Supplementary Estimates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1938; col. 51, Vol. 335.]
The House will observe that the £10,000,000 estimate which I have cited covers items other than food storage. Moreover, it covers not only the food to be purchased but the places in which it is to be stored. Yet those of us who have urged the necessity of storage have been met all the time with charges of extravagance.
The technique of criticism employed against those of us who have pushed this matter has been to set up in the air and then to destroy proposals which have never been made. That is an old trick of debate but hardly worthy of future Ministers. On 9th February the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)—to whom I have given notice of my intentions to-night— distinguished himself by saying:
 We consume in this country every year from £1,100,000,000 to £1,200,000,000 worth of foodstuffs, and of this £600,000,000 worth is imported. To put on one side two years' supply of imports would involve an expenditure of £1,200,000 a year. Is it seriously suggested that the case has been made out for regarding food storage as such an essential part of the defence weapon as to justify expenditure on that scale beside which the annual expenditure on all the defence services dwindles in comparison? 
Speaking of wheat, the hon. Member said:
 Assuming you wanted to find storage capacity for 6,000,000 tons, not an excessive requirement, you would be called upon to find a further £30,000,000 for the construction of silos in excess of the capacity existing today, and that would bring the total expenditure in one year—provided the buildings could be erected in a year—on the storage of wheat alone up to £100,000,000."— [OFFICIAL RF.PORT, 9th February, 1938; cols. 1101–2, Vol. 331.]
By way of peroration to this shattering speech the hon. Member found it necessary to answer the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) by quoting the retort of Charles II to the Duke of York:

 My guard. Brother James, is that no one would kill me to make you King.
We all know how, hardly a week later, someone else was butchered to make a Roman holiday. And the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was at once rewarded for his attacks on the policy which the Government were, in fact, pursuing in secret by being crowned, if not king, at least Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. In the last seven years I have seen strange political developments but none more strange than this.
I regret one detail in the scheme disclosed by the President of the Board of Trade. He said that wheat was not to be stored inland. I respectfully submit to the Government that their object ought to be the maximum condition of safety. It is little use having a store of food, however copious, unless it is as safe as we can humanly make it. When we consider the original estimates of the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, I feel that the Government might have spared a little more money to secure that absolute safety. Perhaps the Government, while professing to store wheat on the West Coast, will secretly sink it below the soil of Mid-Bedfordshire.
I welcome the Bill because it is a vital addition to what are called our passive defences. It removes the likelihood of our being paralysed by starvation. It makes us a far more formidable factor in any system of that collective security which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire would like to injure, but by support of which the National Government helped at the last General Election to make their triumph so resounding. This scheme which is now to be translated by legislation into fact will, if the emergency arises, liberate our Navy to concentrate upon the fleet of the foe and to blockade the coasts of the aggressor. We shall not have to allocate so much of the Royal Navy for convoying essential food supplies from abroad. To put the matter quite bluntly, Germany will not have such an easy time, if and when she causes a breach of the peace. No measure could have my more hearty support. It has, moreover, been blessed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). But because, no doubt, of its alleged or supposed inadequacy, ineffectiveness and superfluity, I expect to


see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour emerging from his room later to-night and dividing the House against that Government of which he is so outstanding an ornament.

7.54 P.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I take this opportunity of expressing two general sentiments about this matter which I share with many hon. Members. Sitting here during yesterday's Debate a great many of us felt what a mad world this was in which we found ourselves, and what a commentary upon our civilisation was the discussion of such subjects as we have been discussing for the last few days. Last night we spent several hours in the discussion of protection against onslaughts not from the savages of the world, but by the civilised peoples of the world upon each other. Mankind has come to a strange pass when we are preparing plans to go into the bowels of the earth for protection against our own kind.
With regard to the Bill, I offer one general observation. As a lifelong Socialist I have been pleased to hear the approval with which it has been received. I think the only exception was the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) and I could see that there was a severe struggle between the hon. Member's loyalty to the Government and his support of the principles of private enterprise. I welcome the Bill because in it the Government are taking action to protect us in time of emergency against what we assume will be the complete breakdown of the system of private enterprise. I am glad that even the National Government, even an anti-Socialist like the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence realise that in a time of emergency the food of the nation cannot be left to private individuals intent upon private profit, but that it is the duty of the State to look after its people. The Bill will enable the Government to store certain essential commodities, and the most important is food.
My interest in this matter arises from the fact that I represent Llanelly, which produces the raw material for canning, and canning has become the most efficient way of storing foodstuffs. There have been, and still are, objections on the part of some people to canned food, but when we face the problem of storage we have to ask ourselves what is the most

efficient method, and in considering that question we must take into account the remarkable increase in the consumption of canned food both in this country and throughout the world. Some people connected with the tin-plate industry in my town have given me figures which show that the consumption of canned food in this country increased from 10,000,000 cwts. in 1930 to over 15,000,000 cwts. in 1935, and a remarkable thing is that the bulk of the increase was in the consumption of canned foodstuffs grown in this country. In the same period the amount of canned foodstuffs produced in this country increased from just under 2,000,000 cwts. to over 5,000,000 cwts. and the largest increase of all—an increase from 314,000 cwts. in 1930 to 1,250,000 cwts. in 1935—has been in the canning of home-produced vegetables.
I know this aspect of the problem has received consideration, and I do not emphasise it more than to say that the tin-plate industry to-day is working at less than 40 per cent. of its capacity. If it were possible in connection with food storage to increase the production of canned foodstuff it would bring a measure of relief to people in my division and it is amazing how people who have been unemployed for a: long time welcome work, whatever the reason for that work may be. An extension of this industry would give more work to the people in the districts of West Wales where tin-plate is manufactured and to that degree would be welcome.
The efficiency of canning processes has developed enormously. I am told that deterioration in canned foodstuffs that have been kept for a year is only at the rate of 1 per cent., and at the end of two years it is only 5 per cent. In our own country we can produce plenty of vegetables. Take my own county of Carmarthen. It has an agricultural part, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin), in which there are two or three fine fertile valleys where vegetables could be produced, and there is also the estuary of the river, and I am told that the sandy soil along that estuary is the best in the country for the production of some kinds of vegetables. In that county there are the two kinds of soil required for growing vegetables, and in Llanelly tinplate is produced. Here is the natural home for


the production and canning of such foodstuffs as would make us doubly sure of not being starved out in time of emergency. I know that this is under the serious consideration of those responsible, and I only mention it in order to suggest that it should be given, if possible, increased consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Edwards) has spoken about oil from coal. The right hon. Gentleman must surely know that in this matter we are very vulnerable, and it is most regrettable that before this Bill came forward we have not had an opportunity of discussing the Falmouth Report. I am profoundly dissatisfied with that report. It takes far too narrow a view. We are spending enormous sums in purchasing what is perhaps the most essential product of all. There is one enemy which is being named as our enemy. Anti-Fascist as I am, I frankly deplore this practice of naming the enemy; we are still on friendly terms with that country, and we sent over the Under-Secretary to the Home Office to see the precautions they are taking against our aeroplanes. In the country which is being named as the enemy, they, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, at any rate are not going to rely on importing the oil they need for the bombers that they will send over. They are spending money on producing oil from lignite coal, and if German engineers can get oil out of lignite coal, I do not think British engineers are so tenth-rate as to fail to get oil out of the first-rate coal we have in this country. The Falmouth Committee has been a sheer waste of time. It has done nothing to add to what we know of the problem. I have a growing conviction that behind this objection to developing our own oil from our coal resources is the vested interest of the oil concerns. It may prove not only a tragedy but a crime if this country has to remain dependent on imported oil because of the vested oil interests.
The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) made an interesting speech this evening. One of his suggestions was that the workers in this country might be persuaded to store a month's supply of food. I do not think there is any worker in this country who would object to having a month's store of food in his house. What they object to is that on the day before

pay-day there is no food at all in the house. If that plan is to be adopted, somebody must find the money to buy a month's store of food for the large mass of poorly-paid employed workers and all the unemployed workers. If that suggestion is to be adopted, I hope the Government will persuade the employers to give their workers a month's pay in advance. Another suggestion was that pit props might be stored. I hope that is done. I have very unhappy recollections of using some British timber and trying to make something like a decent pit prop of the kind of wood that was sold in the last War. I am convinced that there were many accidents in the pits because we did not have wood that could be suitably used for the purpose. There are hundreds of misused and unused pit shafts and pit levels in this country. Before you talk of building store houses that will be completely useless at the end of your emergency, I suggest you might use some of these.
After this Bill, I hope the Government will bring in another Bill. There is first the problem to be tackled of making sure that we have the food when the emergency comes, but there is the second problem of making sure that when the emergency comes the food will be fairly distributed. The only thing that will save the country then is Socialism, State control, and seeing that we deal with people strictly in accordance with their service to the State. Miners, steel workers and others on whose services the nation will vitally depend, and who need good food if they are to be able to perform these services, should have consideration first. I dare say there is a good deal of food stored already in the West End, but it is not on the people in the West End but the people in the mining districts and similar areas on whom the nation will principally rely. I hope, therefore, that there will be another Bill to provide for a decent system of distribution of food. There will have to be rationing, and if there are suggestions of class treatment in time of national emergency the Government who stand for it will be running grave risks of trouble.

8.10 p.m.

Sir T. Inskip: This Bill has been welcomed by every speaker this evening. It is true that some hon. Members have thrown in a word or two of criticism for


what they regarded as past inaction, but that has not prevented any hon. Member from expressing satisfaction at the introduction of this Bill. I should like to express on behalf of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself our gratitude for the welcome which the Bill has received. It will be a very great advantage to have this Bill on the Statute Book in case of future operations in respect of food storage. I well remember, for it is only a few months ago, that when we were considering the steps that should be taken to initiate a series of purchases of food we had doubts and anxieties as to the methods that should be pursued, and if it had not been for the willing co-operation of the traders whom we took into our confidence, and who so well justified our confidence in them, we should not have been able to take those steps which were described by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) as illegal. In the true sense of the word, they were not illegal; they were unauthorised, and we want an Indemnity Bill to justify the action we took. There is another thing that I think I ought to say to hon. Members. That is that, although some hon. Members were certainly aware of the action being taken in connection with purchases of food during that period, not a single question was addressed to me asking what had happened. That was, if I may respectfully say so, a great help to me and my right hon. Friend, and a striking example of the public spirit which pervades all parts of this House, because nothing would have been easier than to put me and my right hon. Friend in a Parliamentary difficulty during that period.

Mr. Gallacher: If we had known, you would have been put in that difficulty.

Sir T. Inskip: If the hon. Member would have put me in that difficulty he would not have an opportunity to share the knowledge with other hon. Members. I draw a distinction between hon. Members.

Mr. George Griffiths: He is not the only one.

Sir T. Inskip: It is possible for action of this sort to be taken without authority with the approval of the Whole House, when the facts are stated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough

(Mr. Alexander) started on rather a depressing note when he referred to this Bill as an indication, which nobody could but regret to observe, that the period of emergency had been reached. I do not quite accept that statement, any more than I would accept the statement that when I pay my life assurance premium I am sentenced to death on the spot. This is simply a proper insurance. It is quite true that we should not have considered it had it not been for the disturbed state of Europe; but that does not in the least indicate any nearer approach to the emergency which I hope events have justified us in thinking is not so near as some of us have thought in the recent times.
I should like to express agreement with the statement of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) that the action indicated by the Government in this Bill has had a good effect in other countries. I think it has been somewhat proved to observers of events that this country is intending not merely to arm itself with lethal weapons, but it is determined to prepare as well for emergency, even if the emergency may never overtake us. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University was inclined, I think, to twit me as having responded to suggestions he had made.

Sir A. Salter: I did not say or imply that they were my suggestions.

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Member is too modest to say it. Nevertheless it crept out. I am quite prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the full credit for anything that I did or my right hon. Friend did a few weeks ago. As long as we may have the Bill the hon. Gentleman may have all the credit for it. I feel justified in making this observation when he claims that it was only the efforts of himself which drove us into action. I am justified in stating the fact that the steps that were necessary to lay the foundation for all our action were taken on 25th January, 1937, and we have built upon the action which was then taken. If I remember rightly the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University entered this House only in the succeeding month of February, 1937.

Sir A. Salter: I not only did not say it, but I did not for a moment think of my-


self as having been the origin of this movement. In fact I said clearly in the course of my speech that the agitation had proceeded for years before even the Food (Defence Plans) Department was established, thereby quite clearly implying, as I meant to, that others had advocated this policy long before J was myself in this House.

Mr. Gallacher: Have an inquiry to find out who started it.

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Gentleman, as well as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. O. Evans) paid me a compliment. They both described me as a man of ideas rather than of action. On the whole, I should suppose that brain represents an important part of the anatomy of man, and it is no small compliment to be told that ideas predominate in my make-up. Coming from the Member of a party to which the late Lord Haldane belonged, who said that the great necessity of the time was more thinking, I should have thought that that would not be regarded as a disqualification for the part I occupy in connection with food planning. A good deal has been said as to the respective parts which my right hon. Friend and I are expected to play in this matter. It is a misconception of my position if any hon. Member thinks that I represent an executive Department. That is not the case. The idea underlying the duties which I try to perform is that there shall be co-ordination of the different ideas which are necessary in order to devise a policy which is necessarily carried out by different Departments. Sometimes it is the Board of Trade, sometimes it is the Defence Departments, and sometimes it is the Ministry of Transport, but the plan has necessarily to be devised, under our complicated modern system, in a Department which is in touch with all other Departments, and that is the part which my Department plays in this matter. The action which was taken in March and April of this year in connection with the purchases shows a degree of co-ordination which is satisfactory, I hope, to hon. Members who are now observing the fruits of it in this Debate.

Sir J. Lamb: Was it the intention of my right hon. Friend to leave out the Ministry of Agriculture?

Sir T. Inskip: No, but I cannot recite all the Ministries. I would certainly include the Ministry of Agriculture. I would say, in answer to my hon. Friend, as he has mentioned the Ministry of Agriculture, that not only has the Ministry of Transport been associated with the consideration of the food storage problem, but the Ministry of Agriculture also, and from the beginning a representative of that Ministry has always been present at our councils. Criticism has been made of the limited scope of the Bill. I would remind the House of the different commodities which have been pressed upon the Government as suitable to be included within the Bill—lead, copper, pig iron, emery and pit props. These represent only a few of the commodities which hon. Members might like to see stored. With the exception of pit props, however, there is no difficulty at all in making the necessary provision by way of storage where that is thought to be right. It is not necessary to have this Bill in order to enable the Defence Departments to be furnished with the materials which they want for the defence purposes. In fact, as has often been stated, considerable reserves of raw materials, sometimes of those commodities which are only wanted in small quantities though of great importance, have been made.
All of the articles which I have mentioned have come under the consideration of the Government, and I do not want to say anything as to the decision which has been made for storing them. As far as pig iron is concerned, the announcement was made that the Government had decided that it was not necessary. I listened with a great deal of sympathy to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Edwards) as to the position of the blast furnaces in his constituency and the desirability of having an adequate supply of pig iron. But I find—it has been ascertained for the purpose of the decision—that there is an enormous quantity of pig iron and scrap at the blast furnaces as well as in the steel works. It must be a question of degree as to what additional quantity of pig iron ought to be stored. So far as I and my duties are concerned, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter, having been reviewed on the state of the facts as they now exist, will not be lost sight of. The position will be watched. The hon. Gentleman appeals to me on the ground of


the employment of labour. This is a consideration which, although I should be very glad to entertain it and do entertain it, is primarily the responsibility of another Ministry.

Mr. Edwards: The Minister will realise that six months ago the whole of the industry was not producing enough to meet ordinary demands under normal conditions. I claim that, if under ordinary conditions they cannot possibly cope with that demand, should war begin with no more than the 100,000 tons with which they began the last War, they could not possibly catch up.

Sir T. Inskip: I think I appreciate the nature of the arguments—and I do not say for a moment that there are not arguments in favour of a policy of storage of pig iron—but it must be understood by the hon. Gentleman that these arguments have been well weighed, and the reasons against the expenditure of a considerable sum on storage of a further supply have been found to be, in present circumstances, on the whole against the decision which the hon. Gentleman desires.

Mr. Edwards: Only partially.

Sir T. Inskip: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough quite rightly said that there would be a great temptation to press for the storage of a great many commodities by the Government if the scope of the Schedule of the Bill was enlarged. I take that view and it is the view on which my right hon. Friend has had the Bill drafted.
A good deal has been said by hon. Members as to the keeping of stocks in other forms than under this Bill. Hon. Members must not suppose that if they were publicly informed of the sum that has so far been expended on the purchase of stocks they would thereby be able to judge the volume of stocks which have been created, or for which provision has been made. The Bill empowers action to be taken in the way of financing stocks to be kept by traders. Incidentally, one hon. Member asked me how we could be sure that those stocks having been financed, would be kept up. The answer is, that the financial arrangements will include an assurance and condition to make it quite certain that the stocks will be maintained. That point has not been overlooked, and arrangements will be made for that purpose.
I want to illustrate one very important way by which we add to the volume of the stocks. I will give an illustration in regard to sugar. The stocks of sugar in each year fall consistently from the highest point down to the lowest point at the same period of the year. If hon. Members will look at the graph of the stocks of sugar in this country they will see that it is like a sharp V. There need be no anxiety when the stocks of sugar are at their highest point. The obvious duty is to see, if possible, that they never get as low as they normally do at the lowest period of the V. This matter was discussed with the firm that is responsible for far the largest normal supply of sugar in this country, and in response to a suggestion that I made to Messrs. Tate and Lyle they undertook, at no charge to the Government but solely at their own charge, to flatten out the lowest point of the V in such a way as to ensure the maintenance of a very much larger volume of sugar at that period of the year.
The maintenance of stocks in this way by the traders is an important supplement to the normal stocks which business men hold for their own ordinary purposes, and to the stocks which the Government may ultimately finance or purchase for themselves. It would be a complete mistake to think of the volume of our resources of food as consisting only of those which the Government purchases. You have to add to those purchases the normal stocks and the stocks which traders at the suggestion of and in cooperation with the Government are keeping in addition to the normal supplies.
The hon. Member for Oxford University has on more than one occasion asked, if I understood him aright, for the equivalent of a year's supply of wheat. I think he has pointed out, what no doubt is well worth consideration, that if we release tonnage which is usually employed to bring one commodity, by storing a large quantity of that commodity, we have available tonnage for other commodities, because owing to the construction of our modern ships the tonnage is interchangeable. I agree on that point. No doubt the hon. Member will include the normal stocks which are held by the traders as well as the stocks that are purchased by the Government in his calculation of always ensuring a year's supply. At any rate that is how I understood him, but whether I understood him aright or not.


in determining a year's supply I suggest to the House, as I have suggested before, that it must be a matter of degree to calculate what additions should be made to the normal stocks, and it is impossible to contemplate anything like such a large purchase as a year's supply of stocks either in wheat or any other commodity.

Sir A. Salter: I did not suggest that we should have a year's supply of wheat. What I did suggest, in order to give the order of magnitude of additional stocks that I should like to be maintained, was that additional stocks beyond the normal ones of the trade should be acquired of wheat, flour, canned goods, sugar and fats, which together should be equivalent to a year's wheat consumption.

Sir T. Inskip: I think I understood the hon. Member, and that was what I intended to indicate as representing his argument. The Government have to take into account all the considerations mentioned by my right hon. Friend in intro-during the Bill, and take care that the stocks are adequate for the circumstances for which they are intended. I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. Member's thesis that we must provide ourselves with stocks which would enable us to stand a siege, because he seems to suggest that we should have lost command of the seas.

Sir A. Salter: indicated dissent.

Sir T. Inskip: I am glad that the hon. Member does not suggest anything of that kind.

Sir A. Salter: Never.

Sir T. Inskip: Then he and I are in agreement on this point, that you do not want to have stocks in order to stand the siege of a beleaguered city, but stocks to carry you over a period of disturbance, interruption in bur shipping, and possible destruction of stocks at the ports. The Government have proceeded upon that plan and I think we have made, so far, adequate purchases for the situation as it is at present. My right hon. Friend has given an assurance, as far as wheat and whale oil and sugar are concerned, that there is no present intention of adding to those purchases. There are problems which deal with the necessities, possibly, of a population that may be shifting, either by evacuation or some other process, and we are awaiting con-

sideration of the question of the movement of population by a committee over which the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) will preside. May be when we have the report and recommendations of that committee it will be necessary to make provision for the population by stocks other than those which are acquired in the shape of wheat.
A question was asked me by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough as to the financial arrangements. The Bill requires that any money advanced should be paid back to the Consolidated Fund in the year following the close of the financial year in which the original transaction took place. That is a usual provision in connection with other advances out of the Consolidated Fund. It entails the ascertainment of the sum and the granting of it by the House of Commons in the previous July. That is the customary practice. It means a postponement of only three months after the close of the financial year in which the original transaction took place. There is nothing unusual in that, and it will in the appropriate period enable the House to obtain the fullest information.

Sir A. Salter: That means that we shall have next month, I take it, a Supplementary Estimate which will cover the expenditure already incurred?

Sir T. Inskip: Yes. With regard to liquidation. I have previously stated that one of the difficulties in food storage is the process of liquidation which must necessarily some day arise when our anxieties are at an end. Hon. Members have recognised that liquidation is a difficult process. My right hon. Friend has taken the course provided in the Bill, so that traders shall not have hanging over them indefinitely the possibility of disturbances of the market by the continual dribble of Government-owned stock on to the market with the possibility of depressing prices. It is not in the interests of the consumer any more than in the interests of the producer, that there should be a violent oscillating of prices. What is the alternative? The alternative is not to throw the whole volume on to the market at once but to give notice to the trade by a Bill that it is intended to liquidate the stocks for the purpose of closing down the arrangements altogether, and then traders will, I am afraid, have


to put up with the consequences, whatever they may be for the time being, of a disturbance of the market. I think the House will agree that while there are disadvantages in the process it is best to give notice and have the- approval of the House that the time has come when these stocks can be liquidated. Of course there is the continual process of turning over the stocks in order to maintain them at their proper level as decided by the Government.

Mr. Alexander: In the Bill the provisions are of a general character and apply to every class of commodity, and there might be a great danger in liquidating these stocks of incurring substantial loss to the Treasury.

Sir T. Inskip: I suggest that hon. Members should have an opportunity of considering this point in Committee. No one wants to be rigid about it, but my present impression is strongly in favour of the course adopted by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I have no ground at all for thinking that the reasons which actuated him are not sound and ought not to be decisive. Questions have been asked as to the places of storage. One hon. Member asked whether the four firms who are concerned in wheat purchases have added to their storage to enable them to keep supplies. I think they can be relied upon to carry out their undertaking. I share the regret of the hon. Member for Oxford University that the tendency in recent years has been to concentrate the storage of grain in the ports by reason of the location of the mills at the dockside. We have to deal with circumstances as they arise. We must rely on these four firms, including the two Co-operative Wholesale Societies, English and Scottish, to carry out the arrangements which have been approved.
There has been a good deal of discussion about agricultural policy in connection with this Bill. May I point out at once that this storage policy does not exclude the necessity for considering a policy of agricultural production, which ought to be expanded in time of war, but this does not remove the necessity for this storage policy. They are not mutually exclusive policies. This is a supplementary policy. If you like they are two supplementary policies, and I only refrain

from discussing the arguments which have been addressed to the House by hon. Members who sit for agricultural constituencies because this is hardly the occasion and, indeed, Mr. Speaker indicated it was not the occasion, to elaborate that part of the Debate. I have no doubt that Members in all parts of the House who are interested in agriculture will take an early opportunity of making the speeches which they have had some difficulty in presenting this afternoon.

Mr. Hopkin: Does the word "trader" include producer?

Sir T. Inskip: Yes. If the hon. Member will look at the Bill he will see that it includes the producer. I sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to encourage the canning industry as an aid to employment in South Wales, but you can hardly deal with food storage as an unemployment problem. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that the question of canning food will have to be most carefully considered, and I should like to support one observation he made that it is a complete mistake to suppose that canned food under modern conditions is less nutritious or less useful in the way of food consumption than food which is naturally eaten. I believe I am speaking on the best advice in making that statement. There is no objection to the use of canning in this connection, and if it is not used it will not be because it is not a serviceable way of adding to our food storage.
We have been asked whether there are not good reasons for encouraging members of the public to lay in stocks. I have always been unwilling to do that as a policy. Let every prudent housewife do it if she likes, but it must be realised that it is only people in good circumstances who are able to spend money to supplement their normal stocks, and if the population of this country adopts a policy of that sort in response to an appeal by the Government it would only be the better-off members of the community who would be able to do so, and we should be making no provision for the large class of people who could not add to their stocks. However admirable it may be for anyone to add to supplies of food by keeping an iron ration, the Government are bound to turn a blind eye to any such proposal, in so far as it applies to food storage which should inure to the benefit of the whole


population. I hope that is an adequate answer. I am not discouraging it. Let anyone do so if he likes, but as far as the Government are concerned we cannot bring it into our calculations.

Mr. Alexander: The right hon. Member will realise that he may be quoted in favour of hoarding, and if housewives lay in large stocks in that way you may have, on an outbreak of hostilities, some difficulty in making a fair distribution of the national stocks. I hope we shall not encourage people to disturb the market in that way.

Sir T. Inskip: The last thing I would do would be to encourage that, and it is for that reason that I have never lent a willing ear to that suggestion.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I hope it will not be thought that the only thrifty wives are those who have plenty of money, for that was the statement made by the Minister. The wives who have not got any money are the thrifty wives. I was pleased that the Minister made the announcement, against the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), that such a thing would be looked on with displeasure by the Government.

Sir T. Inskip: The suggestion is a very familiar one, and it has been constantly brought to my attention; and I thought that it was desirable that I should say that, as a matter of Government policy, we could not treat it as any substitute for, or even as a supplement to, the proposed s}'stem of food storage. I do not pretend that I have dealt with every point that has been raised. I have covered a wide field, and I shall not discuss such questions as the production of oil from coal—

Mr. J. Griffiths: Another day.

Sir T. Inskip: On another occasion we can consider the Falmouth Committee's Report. I hope that if any points have been omitted by me in my reply, they are points that can be elucidated and examined in the Committee stage. With these observations, I hope that hon. Members, who have welcomed the Bill from all parts of the House, realising that it is a step forward, however tardily taken— if the hon. Member for Oxford University

thinks that it was tardily taken—will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

Sir A. Salter: I should like to ask a question of very great importance from the point of view of the precedents and privileges of Parliament. This Bill, apart from its provision for the future, is a Bill of indemnity for expenditure which, while I agree that it is very laudable—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The hon. Gentleman must put his question very briefly, because he has already spoken in the Debate.

Sir A. Salter: In view of the fact that it is extremely rare in our Parliamentary history for expenditure to be incurred without previous authorisation, can the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that he is now asking for indemnity, tell us the amount of expenditure for which indemnity is asked, seeing that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has put his question, and he must restrict himself to that.

Sir T. Inskip: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has asked the House to wait until the Supplementary Estimate is brought forward, as it will be within the next five or six weeks. I hope the House will be satisfied with the statement that has already been made, bearing in mind especially that if I were to give an estimate of the amount which has so far been expended, it would be no indication, for the reasons I have mentioned, as to the stocks that will be maintained in this country.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the amount of money. No one in this party desires to oppose the Bill, and we support it. The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, take notice that when the proper occasion arises, some comment must be made on the fact that this is a very rare case in which retrospective indemnity is demanded for expenditure already made.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday, 14th June.— [Captain Dugdale.]

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES RESERVES [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Board of Trade to obtain information as to commodities which in the opinion of the Board would be essential for the vital needs of the community in the event of war and to make provision for the maintenance of reserves of such commodities, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade for the purposes of the said Act and of any expenses incurred by the Board before the passing of the said Act for the purpose of creating or assisting the creation of a reserve of any such commodity as aforesaid; and
(b) the making out of the Consolidated Fund of temporary advances to any fund established by the said Act for the purpose of meeting such expenses as aforesaid, but so that any such advance shall be repaid out of the fund to the Exchequer not later than the thirtieth day of September next following the end of the financial year in which the advance was made."—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Stanley.]

Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday, 14th June.

HERRING INDUSTRY BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I.—(Reconstitution of Herring Industry Board.)

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, after "person," to insert:
shall have had wide business and administrative experience, and.
The words of the Amendment are taken directly from the Report of the Duncan Committee, which was presented three or four years ago. On page 38 of that report, in dealing with the question of the independent members of the board the committee states:
We are of the opinion, and again find support for it from responsible witnesses, that the board should consist, in part, of members from outside the industry. They should be persons who would bring to bear on the trade problems a wide business and administrative experience.

I think the Committee will agree that something like those qualifications should be demanded of the men who are appointed to the new board. I do not insist that these words should be put in the Bill, but I feel that it is worth discussing this matter if we can obtain from the Secretary of State an assurance that those qualifications will, in fact, be expected of the men who are appointed. It is a big industry that we are discussing. It is an industry which employs 15,000 fishermen and another 2,000 or 3,000 people as well—it may be that 20,000 people altogether are concerned. The trade is scattered over many parts of the country, and whole districts or counties, indeed, depend upon the herring industry. The trade has a turnover exceeding £2,000,000 a year. It is a very difficult business. Partly on account of the scattered nature of the trade and partly because of the extreme perishability of the product, it is not easy to produce, distribute or sell herring. I suggest that we shall need men of very marked ability in order to make a success of this business.
Let the Committee consider the market. Two-thirds or three-quarters of the product goes abroad. It is one of the trickiest markets at the present time. In Europe, exchange restrictions, import quotas, popular tastes, and Government control exercise an influence more direct and more embarrassing to the trade than will be found probably in the case of any other commodity in any part of the world. The men who are to be the directors of this industry must know something about that European market. They must have experience, they must know something about the business of transport across the sea and of negotiating with foreign buyers, they must have experience of exploiting a difficult market, and they must have the knowledge and the ability to seize an opportunity when it comes. Even in the last three or four years we have lost opportunities of Russian contracts through sheer mismanagement.
In view of its great importance and the complexity and difficulty of the overseas market, it is essential that one or more of the new directors of the industry should have wide business and administrative experience. The home market, too, is not being developed as it should be. I make no comment on the qualities of the present board, but they have not succeeded in


expanding the home market. I doubt whether there is on that board to-day a sufficient representation of modern and progressive marketing experience. It is essential that these new directors should understand the whole business of selling, advertising, finding retail outlets, and associating demand with supply. I, therefore, suggest that it would be useful if my right hon. Friend could give us the assurance that if my Amendment is not acceptable to him the spirit underlying it will be in his mind.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I do not want to strike a controversial note in what I hope will be a harmonious evening, but I think this Amendment is unnecessary, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not bother too much about accepting it. We can trust the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Agriculture to appoint people of wide experience. I am not convinced that all the members of the board should necessarily have had wide business experience. I would not limit my right hon. Friend beyond the extent to which he is already limited in the Bill, which is that no member of the board should have any direct interest in the herring industry. Perhaps one can go a step further and express the hope that the new board will not contain any members of the old board.

The Deputy-Chairman: That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Boothby: I was afraid that it might not, but having expressed that view, I would pass on immediately to say that I hope the Secretary of State will have the widest possible discretion in appointing these three independent members; and to set down all sorts of qualifying phrases is unnecessary and not altogether desirable.

8.59 P.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Unlike the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) I do not believe in the ability of the Government to choose the proper men unless we select the men for them, or go as near as possible to doing so by laying down conditions. The last board should be a sufficient warning to us. If the Government want to get the best men with business and administrative experience, they will find them as directors in the Co-operative movement. One at least should be taken from that organisation, and with his ex-

perience of that great working-class movement he would approach with sympathy and knowledge the question of marketing the fish and the question of the great market in Russia which the industry used to have He would be of the greatest value to the industry. The Amendment should be accepted on the understanding that the Minister took into consideration the people of great experience in the Cooperative movement. He should not be given a free hand. The Minister had a free hand on the last occasion, and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen himself now asks that we should not have any of those who were selected when the Minister had a free hand.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: It is right that some representative of the herring industry should utter a word of protest against the attack which is being made upon the Herring Industry Board. I do so the more gladly because one of the Government's nominees on that board was a political opponent in my constituency and was formerly a distinguished member of the Labour party. The board had a very difficult task and they did their best to face the appalling difficulties which they had to surmount.

9.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), in moving the Amendment, said he himself felt that it might not be advisable to put these words in the Bill, but that he would like to have a statement that in selecting the new board the capability of those to be selected would be carefully examined. There is, in fact, a precedent for putting such words in a Bill. The Bacon Industry Bill contains the words:
 persons who in the opinion of the Minister are by reason of their financial, commercial or administrative experience, fitted to serve on the board.
In the case of the Wheat Commission, the Sugar Commission, the Livestock Commission and the White Fish Commission, no such words are inserted. There are, therefore, precedents either way. In this case the better plan is, I think, to leave the Minister unfettered, but I would reassure my hon. Friend that we fully realise the importance of selecting men of high administrative ability for these im-


portant posts. I need not stress what has been said before of the great work which is required to be done on the marketing and organisation side, and of the fact that we require men of ability who can handle the task with skill and with tact. I assure my hon. Friend that everything he said will be taken into account, but it would be advisable to leave us a free hand to make the selection. With that assurance, and bearing in mind that the appointments are regarded by us as of great importance, and requiring great ability, perhaps my hon. Friend will be satisfied to leave the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.5 P.m.

Mr. Adamson: I have one or two questions, which arise out of the appointment of the new board, to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland. First, I should like to know what is to happen in the interim period—before the appointed day, and while administration is continued under the old Act. So far as I can gather, no provision has been made for continuation of the work which has been undertaken, and under Clause 8 of the 1935 Act the provision of money by Parliament was to terminate on 31st March, 1938. Are the obligations which were imposed under the principal Act to be carried out during the interim period? For example, under that Act there was created a Herring Fund Advances Account, and undoubtedly there will be many outstanding obligations under it. In addition, there are the loans which were sanctioned for nets, for the reconditioning of boats and, in some instances, for the purchase of new vessels. I trust, also, that we shall hear that the annual report of the Herring Board will in future be a Command Paper.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I gladly deal with the one or two points which the hon. Member has raised. In the first place, he feared there might be a danger of a gap before the new board took office and wished for a reassurance that the operations of the board would be continuous. The position is that the Act of 1935 continues in force, and that the members of the board were reappointed for the period up to 30th November next. The present board will

be responsible for the report for the year 1937–38, which is in course of preparation, and will continue to administer the provisions of the Act until the reconstituted board proposed by the Bill take office. The financial powers and all the obligations of the present board will, therefore, remain in force and will pass to the new board, with such amendments as are made by this Bill. There is, therefore, no danger of any obligation being dropped.
During the Debate on Second Reading several Members asked that the annual report should be published in future as a Command Paper, and in that way be made available to Members. I promised to look into that point, and am glad to be able to inform the Committee that it has been decided to publish the report as a Command Paper in future. The present report has just come into my hands and it will very shortly be published as a Command Paper.

CLAUSE 2.—(Herring Industry Advisory Council.)

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after "functions," to insert:
 and of making such recommendations as may be deemed practicable for the improvement of the conditions of persons employed in the industry.
I have no desire to determine all the functions of the Advisory Council, having regard to the many statutory provisions which apply to the herring fleet—for example, the Merchant Shipping Act— but at the same time there must rest upon them certain obligations which at present are not defined in any way. I will indicate one or two points which we think it desirable to have set out more clearly. In certain herring ports weekly allotments are paid to the dependants of the fishermen when they are away on voyages. In the main it is their wives or mothers who receive these allotments. At the moment there are differences between the customs in different ports, and we think the Advisory Council might undertake to harmonise the arrangements. There is also the question of the rest periods for the fishermen when they get into port. Those are largely determined by the tides, the times of sailing and other considerations. We think it would be possible for the Advisory Council to go


into these matters and bring about a greater degree of uniformity.
It is with this object in view that this Amendment is being moved. I would emphasise the desirability of this council possessing such powers in order to have better opportunities for safeguarding the interests of the men engaged in the industry. As the Minister is aware these fishermen are entirely dependent for their livelihood upon a share in the catch. Their earnings are dependent upon the results of the voyage—upon what is made by the sale of the fish. What they get depends upon the bidding for the fish on the dockside when the catch is landed. Because of those factors we believe it is desirable that these words should be inserted to safeguard the position of the fishermen and others engaged in the industry. It should have the effect of affording them some better security.

9.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): This Amendment brings back to my mind an Amendment of similar intention which the hon. Member moved during the Committee stage of the Sea Fish Industry Bill, and which I had the most unpleasant duty of resisting. He will remember, no doubt, that my reason for so doing was that the Sea Fish Commission had the duty of considering matters connected with the white fish industry and that if one particular duty were specified all other duties should be similarly specified. The functions of the Herring Industry Board, however, are not similar to those of the Sea Fish Commission. Under the Act of 1935, their duty is to confirm schemes for the "reorganisation, development and regulation of the industry," and it is possible that some doubt may arise whether those words would include conditions of employment, and whether the Advisory Council was intended to give advice to the board on that point.
We are, therefore, agreeable to meeting the hon. Gentleman on this Amendment and we are prepared to accept it, at least in principle. It might be better if there were some slight redrafting of the wording. In the first place, I am not sure about the word "recommendation." I think "advice" might be better, for the reason that the Advisory Council are not intended to be a body on which the representation of different interests is

mathematically planned. We do not contemplate, as in the case of other advisory committees, that it will make recommendations by majority vote, after a dispute. Its function is rather to report to the board a clear and balanced account of the different sections of the industry, drawn from people who are themselves engaged in the industry. In the second place, the hon. Gentleman's speech has suggested to me that it might be better to enlarge his words a little and to say: "improvement of the industry and conditions of employment." My right hon. Friend would like a little more time to consider the matter, and he will undertake to insert on the Report stage an Amendment that will give effect to the hon. Member's intention.

Mr. Boothby: I had intended to make a powerful speech in favour of the principle of this Amendment, but I would now like to thank my right hon. Friend very much for having accepted it.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I am very much obliged for the manner in which this Amendment has been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. From my experience of the operation of various Acts, including the Marketing Acts, I think his remark is right about the word "recommendation." If we are to bring about closer relations between the Herring Board and the Advisory Council, I think we shall be satisfied if the Amendment is drafted in that sense, and that we shall have no objection.

Mr. Adamson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out from "chairman" to "and," in line 13, and to insert:
who shall be such member of the board as may from time to time be appointed by the board.
The three Amendments on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friends have broadly the same intention, that the advisory council should be brought closely in contact with the board, and that the chairman or a member of the board should act as chairman of the advisory council. We have given consideration to the matter and we think the


proposal is a good one. It will obviously be advantageous to have the council and the board drawn as closely together as possible and the presence in the chair of a member of the board will certainly help to secure that object. I thought that the best method of doing it was the form in which I am proposing it, namely, that the chairman of the advisory council should be a member but not necessarily the chairman of the board. That will be better from the machinery point of view and will be more easily worked. It would enable the duty to go round—a member might, for example, be unable for some reason to attend—and from this point of view would therefore be helpful. If the appointment is made by the board itself and not by the Minister it would bring the board closely in contact with the work of the advisory council. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment, which should be a great improvement on the Bill.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: All of us who have Amendments on the Paper in this sense will gratefully accept the Amendment that has been proposed by my right hon. Friend. It is a real improvement on some of the other Amendments. I can see that it is desirable to be able to move members of the board round, because any particular member of the board might not always be available to take the chair at the advisory council. What we did see was a possibility of setting up what I might almost call two potentates of almost equal importance, the chairman of the Herring Industry Board and the chairman of this advisory council. They would have important functions, and might disagree on many matters of policy. That arrangement would not work, but the difficulties have been completely avoided by the Amendment which has just been moved by my right hon. Friend. Speaking for myself and most of my hon. Friends we are satisfied with it.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: Immediately after the Second Reading of the Bill I put my Amendment on the Paper at the request of the English Herring Captains' Association. I now wish to express our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment. I believe it

will result in much more efficient work than otherwise would have been the case.

Amendment agreed to.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "consult," and to insert "obtain the approval of."
I move this Amendment formally, not because I think it will be accepted—I do not know whether it will be or not—but because I would like my right hon. Friend to enlighten the Committee exactly as to what he means by the word "consult." We should be rather grateful if he would reply to my question. It would be satisfactory to the Committee to know what Ministers have in their minds with regard to that word and what kind of consultation would be initiated. I imagine that if there was a very strong feeling in the industry against a particular appointment or a particular course of action they would yield to it, but we should like a little further definition as to what Ministers themselves have in mind.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: On this occasion I regret that I cannot agree at all with the hon. Member. If the Amendment means anything, it means that the persons who would be appointed to the Advisory Council would be in feet the equivalent of nominees of the Herring Producers' Association and the Curers' Association and all the rest of it. I remember very well in my youth and innocence and ignorance proposing a similar Amendment to the Livestock Industry Bill, and my hon. Friend with his long experience showed me the wisdom or otherwise of my suggestion. He showed me that it was not a wise one at all. He said it would be the worst possible thing to have persons on the Advisory Council who would be the nominees, the paid spokesmen as it were, of one organisation. It would turn it into a hopeless organisation. In this case it would be still more hopeless, because one has found from experience that, when delegates are sent from the various organisations of the herring trade, they have no freedom whatever to express their minds. They go there as delegates tied to a brief. Many of these men have told me afterwards that they have been prevented on many an important issue from expressing their own minds by the instructions that they had from their organisation. I hope


the Minister will not abrogate the complete freedom that he has, in the Bill as it stands, to choose himself the persons who are to become members of the Advisory Council.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I put down an Amendment, which has not been called, providing for the interests themselves deciding who are to be their representatives, and on the Second Reading I spoke somewhat strongly on this very question. In the setting up of such a council the utmost consideration should be shown to the fishermen and to the interests concerned in the fishing industry. As we cannot get my Amendment discussed, this is the next best thing. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), like many of those associated with him, makes only very halting steps at a time towards any particular goal, and this Amendment is indicative of it. The interests in the industry have a right to elect their members to the council. I know they can make very bad mistakes in the process of election, as is evident from the fact that we have the hon. Member for East Aberdeen and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) here, but we can allow for that and realise that with experience they will reach a better understanding of their responsibilities, and with better understanding will come better representatives. We should encourage democracy and not falter at it as the Amendment does. In view of the fact that the Rules have made it impossible to get a full measure of democracy, we will support the faltering footsteps of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen.
The hon. Member for East Fife has taken up a rather peculiar attitude. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen is a shellback Conservative, but the hon. Member for East Fife is, or was, a Liberal. Now, when it comes to a question of democracy in the fishing industry, in order to support an attitude of opposing democracy he goes for authority to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. That shows what evil associations have done for him. I hope the fishermen will take notice of that and will do a bit of curing. In the meantime I appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment. It will be appreciated by the herring industry and I am certain that, despite any weaknesses that may

have been shown in past elections, weaknesses which are shown in every organisation and are shown in this House, it will encourage the industry very much if those who are chosen for the council are chosen after the endorsement of the interests in the industry.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I am sorry that I cannot support the Amendment, not because I am opposed to the democratic principle but because of the manner in which it is always necessary to work these advisory committees. Instead of improving the constitution of a committee of this kind it would make it much more difficult to obtain a working body. To put it in the Bill that you must obtain the approval in every case of a particular interest is dangerous. The general practice has been to get the principle established first and have an effective advisory council, and then lay it down that the Minister shall consult the interests concerned before the council is finally appointed. It is certain that in the case of the Livestock Advisory Council consultation has meant that the interests in the trade are now represented. I have no doubt that, if the sub-section remains as it is, the various sides of the industry will be properly represented.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I hardly suppose my hon. Friend anticipated that we should accept his Amendment after his observation on the last Amendment to the effect that even on such a body as the Advisory Council the strongest differences of opinion might exist. The same observation might apply even to such a body as the British Herring Trade Association. If he were to have all the representatives of that body elected, it might mean that very important minority points of view, which it would be to the general advantage to have expressed, would inevitably be silenced.
As to the fishermen, even if they were fully organised, I do not know whether they would have the folly to elect my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), or whether they would be inspired by such superior wisdom as would enable them to choose the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher); but the fact is that the fishermen are not fully organised, either on the side of the employers or of the em-


ployed, and they very often merge into one another owing to the system of sharing gear. It would be very difficult, therefore, to find any body which would really be able to give a representative vote on behalf of the fishing employers or of the fishermen themselves. My hon. Friend wants to know what the procedure would be. The Ministers are required to consult such bodies, if any, as appear to be representative of the interests concerned, and the procedure will probably be that the Ministers will invite representative associations to submit a panel from which one or more representatives can be selected; but the Ministers must preserve their right to select from among the members of the panel, and they must also retain freedom to go outside the panel.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Grants for provision of new motor boats.)

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to add:
 (c) in selecting applications for the giving of grants the Board shall take into account the character, skill, and experience of the applicants and the needs of the locality in which the applicants reside.
The Committee will observe that this Amendment suggests a number of tests as well as the means test in determining who shall receive grants under the Clause. I had hoped to be able, with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), to persuade the Committee not to include the means test, but that, apparently, would have been out of order, so that now, it seems, we are to have the means test. Let us face the situation. As it is now, it would appear, as I see it, that, when a fisherman applies for a grant, the only two qualifications he has to show is that he has a sufficient minimum cash amount to lay down—as I understand it, 10 per cent. of the cost of the boat—and that he has no more money, that he has not enough to build the boat out of his own resources. If these are to be the only tests, the grants will go to the wrong people.
If I understand the purpose of the Bill properly, we ought to encourage the younger men in the trade, but, without some such words as those which I suggest, the chances are that these young men will not be given the opportunities they want, or, alternatively, the grants may be given to men who have not the necessary qualities of experience and knowledge of the sea, and who may not live in districts which need this assistance. I suggest three other tests. The first is character. It is most essential that the grants should go to good men who are respected by the district and who will not misuse the money. My second test is that of skill. It would be absurd to give a grant to some fisherman who was not going to use the boat efficiently. The third test I suggest is that of experience. These all seem to me to be most important factors.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Who is going to be the judge?

Mr. Stewart: I am coming to that; I agree that it is a most important point. The last point is the need of the locality in which the applicants reside. There are some ports round the coast" where a larger proportion of the boats are old and almost done than in others. I imagine it would be the desire of the Government to assist those districts as much as possible, and I hope they would take that into consideration as one of the factors. As to who is to be the judge, I assume that, if this Amendment or something of the same nature were adopted, the Ministers would have to lay down some system by which the board took into consultation local people to assist them in choosing the right men for the receipt of these grants, and on the question of the Clause standing part I was proposing to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions which would cover that point.
I recognise at once that, if the tests to be applied are extended, it will be necessary to set up some machinery for effecting the tests, but I submit that that might be considered afterwards if the Committee take the view that some such tests as those which I propose should be made. It may well be that I have not worded my Amendment properly, but I may have included one or two points of which the Committee would approve. I think, however, that every Member


present will appreciate that it is necessary to consider other factors than the mere possession or non-possession of money. I am anxious to help young, energetic men. In my part of the country I could count a dozen fishermen, now serving in crews, who have their chief's or extra chief's certificates, and who cannot get a move on because they have not the necessary funds. I do not want this Clause to prevent these men, with their skill and knowledge, from being assisted.

9.43 P.m.

Mr. Boothby: I have a good deal of sympathy with this Amendment, but I hope that, if my right hon. Friend is considering accepting it, he will leave out the word "character." That is a very difficult matter. I have found from time to time that quite a lot of people think I have a very bad character. I take an entirely different view. I have also found that I disagree very sharply with many of my friends as to the characters of other people. I think that, if we start to lay down in Acts of Parliament that people's characters are to be taken into account, we shall have temperance propaganda and all sorts of other things before we know where we are. I can see endless difficulties arising. Therefore, I should strongly resist the inclusion of that unfortunate word. For the rest, however, I think there is a real danger in the Clause as it stands which ought to be guarded against. It is that the skilled and experienced man who has credit at the bank is going to be penalised for the benefit of the poor fisherman who cannot possibly raise the necessary money. I want to ask the Secretary of State what exactly is meant by the phrase
 which could not be provided without such assistance.
That, to the ordinary Member of the House, looks like a means test applied to the fishermen applicants who come forward and ask for grants under the Bill. If the grants are only to go to those fishermen who cannot possibly raise the money at their bank, as against those who can, is there not a real danger that the good fisherman may be penalised? That is a matter which is causing a great deal of anxiety around the coast of Scotland, and I hope that, whether or not the present Amendment or something like it is accepted, my right hon. Friend will be

able to give some assurances on this point. Neither he nor anybody else in the Committee would wish to see any man deprived of the opportunity of getting a grant merely by reason of the fact that his credit was higher than that of one of his fellow fishermen.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like to give a certain amount of support to this Amendment, but I would like to leave out the reference not only to the character, but to the skill and experience of the applicants, and that would leave only
 the needs of the locality in which the applicants reside.
Just as there are difficulties about character, there are considerable difficulties about skill and experience. You could quite easily have all sorts of investigations that would lead to nothing but waste of time. The differences in skill and experience among these men who would apply for these boats are not of a character that would make for easy judgment, because it is not a case of someone without skill and without experience; he would never be considered by the board. As for the suggestion that the thrifty men will be penalised, what about the poorer men who have been crushed down and are absolutely finished? I have met men in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), and I have talked with them too, who are in the utmost poverty. Does the hon. Member think that they can go to a bank to get £2,000 to provide the necessary share for the building of a motor boat? If there is any question of the poorer fishermen getting a boat at all, it will be a tied boat, tied to one of the combines that would provide the money.

Mr. Boothby: There is such a thing as company ownership, and there are no combines of that sort.

Mr. Gallacher: I know they have a system of company ownership, but I know also that big combines like Unilever, through Mac Fisheries, are pushing more and more into the fishing industry, and I know too that many of these fishermen have not got a penny.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: A man would require to put down 10 per cent. of the cost of a new boat, which might be


£2,000; he would get a grant of £1,000 and a loan for the balance.

Mr. Gallacher: The combines are getting more and more power, and the combines are getting more and more associated with the banks. You cannot differentiate between them; they are getting as close as close can be. You have only to consider the ramifications of Unilever, as well as the other combines, to see that if men got loans for the boats from them, they would, never be able to regain their independence. That is the predicament into which they would be put. There would be no chance for the poorest of the fishermen, and as to character, this is where the danger would come in: It would not be that certain fishermen would be chosen for loans because of their strong or independent character, but the big danger would be that they would be chosen for loans because their character would be one suitable to the big interests that control the fishing industry. I say that this question of character, skill, and experience should be left out and the other part of the Amendment left in, so that the Minister, when the claim of an applicant was under consideration, should seriously consider the needs of the locality, because it is very important that the main big fishing localities that are suffering so much at the present time should be given every possible support by the Government.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: The different speeches that have been made on this Amendment and the different ideas of the three speakers upon it must show the Committee clearly the danger of accepting the Amendment, because it would give authority to the board with regard to certain questions that ought to be left to the discretion of the Ministers and those administering the fund. I could spend considerable time in dealing with the question of different characters in the fishing industry. I could also spend much time in dealing with the question of skill. This refers to the motor boat. What is the definition of skill of those fishermen who were never before employed in a motor boat? What is the definition of skill of those fishermen who are now going to take up what is practically a new thing with regard to their industry? I think it would be dangerous to leave it in the

hands of this particular authority to decide with regard to the character and skill of these applicants. I have much sympathy with the viewpoint put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). This board is being set up for the purpose of administering this fund to bring efficiency to the herring industry. That is the fundamental reason. Because of the mix-up and of the bad conditions in the industry, because of the lack of steady employment, and because of the effect of competition on the industry as a whole, we are now setting up a board—

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Davidson: I was pointing out that the Amendment directs the board to take into consideration certain questions, and I was trying to show the Committee that we have set up a board—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment. This is not the occasion on which to point out the purposes for which the board was set up.

Mr. Davidson: But I thought the Amendment asked the board, in selecting applications for the giving of grants, to decide the purposes for which the board was set up. Am I wrong?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot say that I follow the hon. Member.

Mr. Davidson: The Amendment suggests that in selecting applications for the giving of grants, the board shall do this and that. Does that not indicate a purpose of the board?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is a very limited purpose, whether that should or should not be a reason for giving a grant.

Mr. Davidson: With all due respect, that is exactly what I was saying, that apart from this Amendment the board has been set up to administer the industry in an efficient manner, and this Amendment, in my opinion, would create inefficiency and a general mix-up. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), I have no doubt that he is concerned for men who really deserve to be assisted, but can he not see that if we tie the board in their decisions to the question of character, we are doing something that might create a great divergence of


opinion? If we tie them to the question of skill, we are asking the board to decide a question that ought not to be decided merely from a single point of view.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I mentioned the case of a fisherman with an extra chief's certificate, and I would put down such a certificate as a proof of skill.

Mr. Davidson: That is just the point. If the hon. Member was on the Herring Board, he would take that as a definite proof of skill, whereas there may be fishermen who do not hold any such certificate, and who may have during long years of service proved themselves to be capable fishermen. There are men holding first mate's and master's certificates who cannot obtain a job and there are other seamen just as capable, who do not hold certificates. The board ought not to have the right to say that merely because a man holds this or that certificate it is a reason why he should receive greater consideration than a man who does not hold such a certificate. It appears to me that the proposal of the hon. Member would create a condition of affairs which might give rise to general and continual complaint. We have appointed this board; we have discussed what their duties are to be. Let us give them the power to decide these questions for themselves, and if they decide wrongly I am sure the hon. Members who are interested in herring fishing will soon bring to light any complaints that are made.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I understand that the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) moved this Amendment mainly in order to elicit information, and I think the subsequent speeches have shown that it would be unwise to attempt to lay down these details in the Bill. For example, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would brush aside altogether the question of character, skill or experience. Other hon. Members have expressed views as to what may be meant by character. But I can give the hon. Member and the Committee this clear guidance, that in recommending applicants for grants, the board would, naturally, take into account the character, skill and experience of the applicant. These qualities would properly be con-

sidered. The intention is that the grant should be given to the men who are most likely to make good use of the motor boats, and the qualities referred to by the hon. Member would be appropriately considered in that connection.
Then hon. Members have asked how would the board decide on these matters and where would they get their information. Of course, it will be the responsibility of the board to make a selection from the applicants. They will have assistance from the coastal staff of the Fishery Departments in making their selection and, again, I say, they would properly take into account character, skill and experience. The ownership of a drifter which has been discarded would not, in itself, give a right of preference, though it might be a factor which could properly be taken into consideration.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) asked how it was intended to administer what he called the means test. The history of the assistance which has been given to the industry hitherto leads me to the view that there will be very few cases in which fishermen can build new boats without some form of assistance. One fisherman may be able to provide a larger initial sum than another but, in view of the fact that the policy of loans was tried and it was found that owing to the difficulty of meeting the expense of building, the loans were not taken up, I imagine there will be few cases in which fishermen can afford to build entirely without assistance.

Mr. Boothby: But the fact that a particular fisherman can produce a larger initial sum than another, although nothing like the whole sum, will not, in itself, prejudice him in a matter of receiving assistance?

Mr. Colville: It will not prejudice his claim for assistance, but for details as to the amount of assistance to be given we must wait until the scheme is submitted. I do not think that the test will operate harshly in any way, and I can assure the hon. Member for East Fife that the qualities which he stresses will be taken into account in making the selection.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted any reference to the last words of the Amendment about the needs of the locality.

Mr. Colville: Other things being equal that, of course, would be taken into account.

10 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: The answer given by the Minister leaves me even more confused than the statement of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. It seems to me that all the things which he suggests in his Amendment are in the mind of the Minister and how the Minister proposes to administer this Measure with all those things in mind has me guessing. It is suggested that skill and character are to be taken into consideration before a grant is made and that previous ownership of a boat is not, in itself, to be regarded as a condition upon which a grant will be made. I wonder how the Minister reconciles the suggested administration of this Measure with the proposals made in other Bills which we have been discussing recently. There was never, for example, any question with regard to the suitability or desirability of the individuals concerned when we were considering grants for the reconditioning of houses. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman will have to think again if he proposes to administer this Measure in the way suggested, having regard to the difficulties which have been pointed out.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask the Minister one or two questions as to the method of distributing these grants. I wish to know—despite what the right hon. Gentleman has just said—how are the applicants to be chosen for the receipt of grants? Further, I wish to know whether any rate and maximum amount are foreshadowed? For example is it proposed to spread this £250,000, evenly over the five years, or, if not, at what rate is it to be spent? Then, if applications for the full amount of £250,000 are received, say in the first year, what is to happen? If there is a flood of applications immediately the Bill becomes law how are they to be dealt with? Again, what is to happen if, instead of 250 applications, there are 500 or 1,000 applications, which can be regarded as appropriate?
Is it intended that the proportion of one-third of the cost of the boat will be a maximum and that that proportion shall be lowered in special circumstances? For example, if instead of 250 applications for a one-third grant, there were 1,000 applications, it might be necessary to say, "We will give you, not one-third, but one-eighth or one-sixteenth." Is that in the mind of the Minister? If so, is any total number of new boats foreshadowed? Obviously if the proportion of grant is reduced it will enable a larger number of boats to be built. Has the Minister in mind a maximum number of boats? I understood previously that he has thought of building 50 boats a year—250 in five years. But it may not be so. Perhaps he has a higher number. Will he tell us, if the grants are to be less than one-third of the cost, on what principles the allocation will be arrived at? I have on three occasions since the Bill was published discussed it with the fishermen in my constituency, and these are some of the practical questions that have been put to me. I was not able to answer them, but I undertook that I would put them to my right hon. Friend, because they are very important.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: Perhaps it would be convenient, before the Minister replies to my hon. Friend, that he should be in possession of all the questions that arise. I would like to refer very briefly to a matter of the utmost importance to West-country fishermen. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), who has unfortunately had to go down to Cornwall to-night, expressed some doubt as to whether, under the drafting of the Clause as it stands, fishermen in Cornwall would be eligible for grants at all. There has been a feeling in Cornwall, which I do not necessary share, that these grants are labelled, "For Scotsmen only: no Cornishmen need apply." I would like to be absolutely specific in attempting to elucidate the position in Cornwall: in ports such as Newlyn and Mousehole, for instance. The herring season lasts during November and December. In those months they go out because herring are there; in other months they go out for other fish, such as pilchard and mackerel. Are such fishermen eligible for grants under the Clause?
Further, I would like an assurance that when regulations come to be drafted and directions given, they will not be such as will exclude these fishermen from obtaining a grant. I fully appreciate that in every case the fisherman will have to make out his case on the merits. No Cornish fishermen will object to that. When the regulations come to be drafted under this Clause, to implement this Clause, will anything be done to make sure that boats for fishermen can be, and shall be, made with reference to local needs, and made locally? In administering similar Sections in the past, it has been very unfortunate that the directions have not taken account of the particular type of boats required. If the boats are made in the districts concerned, it will be of great assistance to the boat-making industry in those particular districts.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Loft us: On this occasion, I do not propose to ask the Secretary of State any questions. I criticised at considerable length on Second Reading, the wording and structure of this Clause. I also criticised the wording of the Clause in the Debate on the Money Resolution. I feel that it would be wrong and an abuse of the time of the House to repeat those criticisms now. But I would like, before the Clause passes, to renew my protest. I would add that this Clause does establish a principle and a precedent, and that is that it gives a grant of State money for replacing obsolete fishing vessels, thus helping to maintain the fishing fleets of this country. I value that precedent, and I hope to see it widely extended in future years.

10.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I want to support very strongly my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) in his plea that grants shall be available for West-country fishermen. The West-country fishing trade, which was very prosperous in the past, has now fallen on evil days. It is an industry which deserves to be fostered, it has produced excellent men, and I hope the Government will foster it in the West-country.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I think the Government are perfectly right in confining these grants to the motor boats. I believe that the immediate future of the industry does lie with motor boats. If things go very

badly it is always possible to divert motor boats to other purposes, and particularly to inshore white fishing, whereas the drifter is of no practical value for any other sort of fishing. I think that, on balance, the arguments in favour of the motor boat as the only craft that should be built in any number for the general fishing fleet are quite unanswerable. What I want to do is to reinforce the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) for a little more information regarding the actual practical administration of these grants. Who are the fishermen who will actually get them, and how many do the Government expect will get them? How many boats per annum, on the average, do the Government think the industry can take? What sort of idea have they at the back of their mind as to the allocation of them? About all these things we would like some information. I think the industry as a whole will be greatly interested in the answer of my right hon. Friend, because it will help them to plan for the years that lie immediately ahead.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: On the Second Reading I spoke very strongly against this Clause. I said that it would be utterly impossible for the Government to give less than they are giving, and that it was only incidental that the fishermen are to get what they are getting. The idea behind it is that the Government want motor boats as part of the armaments programme, and so, in order to get them, grants are to be made to a certain section of the fishermen. What I am concerned about is the character test. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said that, so far as he could gather, 250 motor boats will be built, covering the period of five years. There may be, he said, 500 or 1,000 applicants, and I want to be certain that, when it comes to a question of selecting the men who are to get the grant, politics or religion will not play any part from the point of view of character. We had an experience in the House a day or two ago of how politics were introduced when it was a question of Unemployment Assistance Board allowances to the unemployed, and the Minister, because of the protests that had been made, had to send out a circular instructing those who were responsible not to take into account the religious or political


opinions of the applicant. It is quite possible that there may be many more applicants than can be permitted to have the grant, and if it came to a question of character may be some investigator might report, as was the case in the report of the investigator which I produced here in the form of a photostat copy, that a particular fisherman was of a seditious type.
I want the Minister to make it absolutely clear that, on the question of the giving of grants to fishermen, political opinions will not be considered. It is very necessary to emphasise this point, because, on occasion after occasion, we have been faced with the fact that, whenever there have been applications of any kind in connection with the unemployed and other matters, investigators have taken into account the political opinions of an applicant, and his political opinion has always weighed against him. We do not want to see a situation arise where men are victimised because of their political opinions. I ask that the most strict instructions should be issued that, on the question of grants to fishermen, politics shall not be taken into account when such grants are being allocated.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I think that it will be generally agreed, and particularly by Members of the Opposition, who have consistently fought for the herring industry of this country, that there should be a successful administration of this Clause. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) on the list of questions he has put to the Minister. His ability as a questioner far excels his ability as a supporter of many of the Amendments he had previously put down to this Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) is not now present, but I was rather surprised at his sudden conversion to the idea of motor boats. I view this innovation in the herring industry very seriously indeed. I trust that the sanguine statements of the Minister and his belief in them will be fully justified, and that this proposal will bring benefit to the herring industry. I have my doubts. I feel with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) and other hon. Members, who put up a particularly strong case against motor boats on the Second Reading, that

the Minister, when considering the question of supporting a particular industry, ought to have considered the position of that industry in general in the country. This innovation will be a very severe blow to an industry which cannot afford any further setbacks, namely, the coal industry.
There is one further question about which I am concerned. This Clause refers to the provision of new motor boats. Where fishermen in the past have made some attempt to convert their vessels into motor-driven vessels, I should like to know what are their qualifications for a grant under this Clause. It is provided that no grant made in respect of any boat shall exceed one-third. Below what level will the guarantee have to be? If a fisherman can provide only a very small sum which cannot be termed anything near one-third, what consideration will be given to his claim? As a Scottish representative, I trust that what has been said by an hon. Member opposite that this Bill will benefit only Scottish fishermen, is not true. I hope that it will not work out in that way. I regret that it refers only to motor boats. I wish the subsidy had been given on general lines to assist the fishing industry where it can be proved that motor boats would not be beneficial in a particular locality. However, that question has been settled. As a Member of the Opposition, which has agitated for support for the herring industry, which has suffered so much, I can only say that I trust the Bill will assist the whole herring industry, including Englishmen and Scotsmen, and bring about some better standard and conditions to men who have deserved in the past much better fortune than they have received.

10.23 P.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: This grant is to be made only in respect of motor boats. I am amazed.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out that the hon. Member cannot proceed with that argument on this Clause. He can only deal with it in passing.

Mr. Griffiths: At the present time in the mining industry 125,000 men are unemployed, and of that number 23,000 were not unemployed a month ago. This Clause will have a serious effect on coal consumption so far as fishing boats are


concerned. Foreign petrol is to be introduced. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for East Fire (Mr. Henderson Stewart) agree that we should import foreign petrol and continue to pay unemployment benefit to 125,000 miners. I am amazed that a Clause of this kind should be introduced in favour of motor boats alone. It is to operate for six years. Who knows that science may not bring out something in the nature of pulverised coal which would fit into this matter as well as petrol for motor boats? This Clause will do a great injustice to my trade.

10.25 P.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: Most of the questions which have been asked on this Clause are questions to which precise answers cannot be given until the arrangements under the Clause have been formulated, because they are concerned with exactly the kind of decisions which will have to be made by the Minister on the advice of the board. Clearly, if the Government were now to state in advance precisely what will be done they would be superseding the functions which are provided for in the Bill without having had an opportunity of making the necessary examination of the evidence upon which the answers to most of the questions depend. But it might be of some help to hon. Members if I made one or two general observations as to what the Government have in mind. In the first place, the scheme is not one for adding ships to the existing herring fleet. The future number of boats must not be greater than the: number of existing boats, because before a grant is given for a new boat an old boat has to be discarded. There can be no building in excess of the number of boats which at present exist.
Subject to that preliminary and essential limitation the scheme which we have in view contemplates the construction of, probably, 250 motor boats at an average cost of £3,000 over a period of five years. Obviously there are one or two factors which might increase the figure of 250, and there is one factor which might possibly diminish the number. For example, the average cost of these boats may be more than £3,000, and, as the grant may be one-third, it might be that there would be rather less than 250 boats if the maximum grant were given. On the other hand, there are factors which might bring the number a little above that figure. As

my right hon. Friend has said, it is very doubtful whether the condition that the grant shall not be given if the boat can be built without assistance will have much practical effect. As we know, most of the fishermen for whose assistance these grants are proposed, would not be able to provide anything but a small fraction of the cost. In a few cases they may be able to provide a little more, and that might tend to increase the number of boats. Another consideration which might tend to increase the number would be if a fisherman was going to own only part of the new boat, the other owner being a shore owner. Under the arrangements, it might be that the fisherman would receive only grant proportionate to his share in the ownership of the boat, which would be a lesser grant, and that might tend to mean that a larger number than 250 boats might be built.
As to the time, the spread over, the rate of building will depend on the number of approved applications and on the capacity of the boat building yards. I am informed that the yards arc not likely to be able to produce the whole number of 250 boats in much less time than the period provided for in the Bill.
A question was asked as to what will be the position if more applications are received than can be granted. In that case the board will require, whether the excess number is small or great, to select the best applicants and determine to whom the grants shall be given. I think all that can be said as to the principles on which they will do that was explained by my right hon. Friend on a previous Amendment. There remains the question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Drake (Lieut.-Colonel Guest) about the position of English fishermen under this Bill. All I can do is to make it clear that the wording of this Clause does not rule out herring fishermen who devote part of their time to other methods of fishing. That applies equally to Scotland and to England. It must be remembered, of course, that the proposal to make these grants arises from the circumstances of the herring industry, and it will be for the arrangements to decide how the funds available may best be applied, and for the board to make recommendations in particular cases within the arrangements.


If I were to go to the North-East Coast of Scotland and state that every fisherman there would be certain to get a grant, I should certainly be guilty of misleading them, and the same would apply to an English Member who said that in any English constituency.

Mr. Boothby: Could these arrangements be drafted in such a way as to lay down certain broad limits as to the number of craft which could be subsidised in different localities? Under the arrangements, could there be laid down a proportion of new craft which could be allotted to, say, Cornwall, Devonshire and Scotland?

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think it would be illegal under the Act, but I cannot see any equitable reason for doing so under the arrangements. It must be remembered that one great difficulty in the herring industry lies in the shrunken export trade for cured herring, and that one object of the scheme is to provide for the replacement of steam drifters as they fall out of commission by a not greater number of suitable motor boats. That is the guiding principle by which these arrangements will be governed.

Mr. Beechman: When the applications are being made, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if a Cornish fisherman has to apply to Edinburgh for a grant, it will be impossible for him to do so?

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provision for loans to societies for acquiring nets, gear, fuel, etc.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I should like to ask the Minister whether he will consider, before the Report stage, amending Clause 6 so as to make certain that societies which will be the subject of these loans will be of a mutual character based on fishermen and having an actual mutual organisation. I am not sure that the reference to "organisation" in Sub-section (1) (bb) would not, in fact, bring in other people

not in the fishing industry. I do not wish to press the matter now, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider it before the Report stage.

Mr. Colville: indicated assent.

Clauses 7 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendment; as Amended, to be considered upon Tuesday, 14th June, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

PIG IRON.

10.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I beg to Move,
 That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order, 1938, dated the eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.
This and the following Order relate to pig iron and they are, in fact, one. If you will allow us to discuss them together, Sir, it may be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Speaker: If it is for the convenience of the House they may be discussed together.

Mr. Cross: In March last year the duty on foreign pig iron was removed. This step was taken to meet the increased demand arising from the industrial revival and rearmament. The United Kingdom output increased from 3,500,000 tons in 1932 to 7,750,000 tons in 1936, and yet the available supplies were insufficient to meet the needs of the United Kingdom steel industry. The imports of pig iron, which had been at a relatively low rate since 1932, increased last year to nearly 650,000 tons. At the same time, steps were taken to increase home production. A number of old blast furnaces were blown in and United Kingdom production rose to 8,500,000 tons.
When the supply of steel overtook demand the shortage disappeared even more


quickly than it had arisen, but deliveries of pig iron which had been bought forward continued, and it became necessary to put a certain amount of pig iron into stock. Moreover, Continental countries which had suffered from the lessened demand, just as had our own industry, developed a tendency to dump in our markets, and there was also, inevitably, a falling-off in home production of pig iron. Although the output for the first quarter of this year was above that of 1937, the monthly output was falling below the high figures reached in the later months of last year. In those circumstances the question of re-imposing the duty asssumed importance, and the Import Duties Advisory Committee gave notice in March of an application for the removal of pig iron from the free list.
The effect of these two Orders is to remove pig iron from the free list and restore the duty of 33⅓J per cent. ad valorem which obtained before 4th March, 1937. This restored duty came into operation last month. There are certain exemptions of a minor character which remain on the free list, but none of them relates to pig iron which is made in any substantial quantities in this country. The Order merely restores the tariff position to where it was before the temporary suspension of the duty. According to the Advisory Committee, a continuation of imports would seriously embarrass the industry, and no serious objection to the restoration of the duty has been heard from any quarter.
The House will observe that very much fuller information is given in these recommendations than has been the practice in the past. Representations have been made from various parts of the House, and notably from the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) as to the amount of information contained in these recommendations being insufficient to enable Members to form a considered opinion. I want to tell the House that the Import Duties Advisory Committee have informed me that they propose to continue this practice of giving fuller information; but they do add that it can happen in some cases, particularly in some of the smaller industries, that the amount of public information available is scanty and that there is also some information on output which must necessarily be treated as confidential, having regard to the conditions

respecting information relating to industrial firms which are laid down in the Import Duties Act and the Census of Production Act. Subject to those provisos the Import Duties Advisory Committee will continue the practice of giving fuller information.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: On this question I certainly do not want to resurrect the old fiscal controversy, after six years' experience of the tariff policy; not that I am prepared to accept that policy as the best of all policies, for if it has proved anything at all it has proved in this connection that it is almost useless to rely upon action of this kind. However, one or two questions are necessary, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply to them later. We understand that last year 395,000 tons of pig iron were imported while the home production was somewhere round about 8,200,000 tons. What real effect could that 395,000 tons have upon home production or upon the price? When the duty is reimposed, where will the 395,000 tons of cheap pig iron go to, who will use it, and where will they dispose of the finished steel? That raises the question of what effect a duty of this kind is likely to have upon our export trade in steel, because last year, although we imported only 395,000 tons of pig iron, we increased our exports of steel by no less than £12,500,000. The mere imposition of a duty may solve one problem but may create several more in relation to employment.
When reimposing this duty, what control, beyond the so-called control of the tariff commission, will this House have over the finished price of steel? I assume that the commission have given us more information this time than has ever been given to this House before, but they tell us that they are satisfied that the finished price of steel is perfectly proper and that certain other prices are fixed by some interested parties. We are not satisfied that that ought to be the basis of determining our tariff administration. The fourth question is, What has become of the van Zeeland Report? I had better put this question to the right hon. Gentleman himself. Does it mean that that report is set on one side for all time and that the Government are going to depend upon this very easy system of imposing tariffs when a blast furnace closes down or a few men appear to be temporarily unem-


ployed? It proves the ineffectiveness of tariffs as a permanent policy in a fast-changing and fast-moving world and the need for national ownership of some of our major industries, and co-operation between States for import and export regulation of major commodities.
We have had six years' experience. I know that many hon. Members opposite would say that the figures show that tariffs have proved a godsend to industry in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members cheer that, as I expected they would. I know they could tell me that tariffs were put on in 1931, that we exported 29,000,000 tons of steel in 1933, 35,000,000 tons in 1934, 37,000,000 tons in 1935 and 36,000,000 tons in 1936. They would say that those figures were therefore conclusive of the success of the tariff policy. Of course, hon. Members opposite are ready to cheer that suggestion, but when I tell them that we took off the tariff last year and that our exports went up to 48,000,000 tons, what have the tariff reformers to say about that? It is clear that you can prove anything on the basis of these figures. They do pot prove that either tariffs or free trade is a lasting, permanent and final solution of the problem of import and export trade. The figures from 1932 to 1937 prove nothing except that there has been a fluctuating market throughout the world, both for pig iron and in the production, purchase and sale of steel.
The Minister's explanation is the explanation of the tariff commission, and I should have been surprised if he had attempted to put forward any other than the one he gave us. He told us that the price of imported pig iron had decreased to a point below what is called the cost of production in this country. There was a reduction in the number of blast furnaces in operation, and 93 men are now unemployed more than were unemployed several months ago. That being the case, the Government come along to the House and say: "What we want to do, in effect, is to stabilise the available supplies of a certain raw material so that we can stabilise the price of that material and stabilise the profits of those who produce it." In other words, the tariff policy the right hon. Gentleman— [Interruption.] He can import the question of wages if he likes but that is

the last thing that hon. Members really consider in connection with this matter. The House of Commons as a whole, including Members on these benches as well as Members opposite, are all now satisfied that, wherever we can stabilise the available supplies of a certain commodity and smooth out the ups and downs in industry, we ought to do it.
The hon. Member representing agriculture, after long years of painful suffering, has now come down to our policy of stabilisation but, whereas he and his friends want to stabilise available supplies of a commodity and stabilise the price and the profits of it, we adopt a different attitude altogether. What we think about the tariff business is this. We are imposing a tariff against whom? Apart from the Empire, our imports come from the United States, Belgium and France. In other words, duties are imposed against three friendly allied nations. We would not adopt that policy at all. First of all, if we had the power we should take over this major national industry, and if we found that we could produce sufficient quantities of a raw material, instead of the simple process of imposing duties we should enter into agreement with those friendly nations and ask them for the time being to withhold importing or attempting to import that commodity into this country. Every day on the Order Paper there are questions by Members opposite who complain that tariffs have not prevented imports. Tariffs do not in all circumstances keep out imports, whether the tariff is large or small. We are not going to vote against this Order, not because we feel that tariffs are the best policy or the policy which we ourselves should apply. We know after six years experience that small and large industries have entrenched themselves behind tariff walls and it is awfully difficult to know just where to stop. Therefore, as this is merely a reimposition of a tariff, and as the industry is still in private ownership, we do not see the wisdom of continuing the old fiscal Debate when we are going to get nothing out of it. We would rather take the view that the Government are entitled to have a wee bit more rope. Sooner or later the policy will condemn itself and the electors will come back to their old faith.

10.53 P.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I want to thank the Commissioners through the Board of Trade for their concession to the representations that I have made in more than one case, and in this case they have gone back to their former practice of giving us adequate information, particularly figures, to justify the recommendations they have made. In spite of the qualifications which the hon. Gentleman, whom I congratulate on being responsible for the first time for piloting one of these Orders through the House, mentioned, I hope the Commissioners will continue to give us ample information as in this case. I cannot associate myself entirely with what the hon. Member has just said. I think that the result of the attempt of this country to follow the bad example now so common on the Continent of self-sufficiency is brought out by the information given to the House. It is clear that tariff barriers and economic self-sufficiency are not remedies for any of our economic problems.
In 1937, the total imports, in the 10 months in which there were no tariffs, only came to 650,000 tons, as against a United Kingdom production of 8,300,000 tons, which was the highest production figure of all. Now our home supply is in excess of demand, furnaces are being damped down, and a very serious position in the industry is threatened. That is just what is happening in almost every country. We are all trying to be independent of one another, and, as a result of modern methods, we are all having an excess of production. A great deal of the unrest throughout the world is due to this cause, and, until the world is persuaded to adopt other methods, we shall have these constant national gluts. The only remedy, as we have repeatedly said, is to follow the recommendation of the van Zeeland report and have further interchange of goods, to break down these tariff walls and stop the economic war.
In April, 1937, when there was no tariff, when the tariff had been done away with because of shortage of supplies, the average price of Continental imports was £5 8s. a ton, while the British price was £4 4s. a ton, which apparently was economically profitable to the producers. The Continental quotation has now fallen to £4 a ton, because of the slump everywhere in the demand for pig iron. At the

present time the current price of Cleveland No. 3 is £5 9s. per ton, or very much more than it was in April of last year. Undoubtedly what is happening is that the Continent is trying to unload some of its surplus products at cut prices, and that is the case for this tariff, but our price now is £5 9s., which is very much above what it was in April, 1937, at a time when there was a large surplus of our own production quite independent of imports.
I am informed that the home industry is not disposed to lower the price; they would rather have a small production at high prices, even if it means closing down furnaces, than adopt the old-fashioned method of trying to stimulate demand by lowering prices. This is one of the inevitable consequences of our new dispensation. I think we have a right to say that, if the industry is to be freed from foreign competition, it should try to adjust its prices more to the natural state of demand. All experience in industry shows that, if you lower prices, you tend to stimulate demand. There was talk in the economic journals of the Government laying in an emergency stock of pig iron, very much on the lines of the Bill we were considering earlier to-day. I understand that that has been turned down. At the same time the powers that be, the monopoly in the iron and steel industry, have decided not to lower prices. I think we have a right to some guidance from the Department as to what pressure they are going to bring to bear on the trade to lower prices if the trade is to get this protection. The users are pointing out other directions in which, through the slump, prices, being subject to the ordinary rules of supply and demand, are falling.
Pig iron is one of the few commodities the price of which is being artificially maintained in this country, in spite of the excess of supply over demand. Incidentally, I would point out that from British India supplies are still pouring in, so that the Continental commodity is not such a very big factor in the price. While the Continent sent in 9,600 tons, British India sent in 25,500 tons, at an average price of £5. Fortunately for us, our tariff system does not work within the four corners of the British Empire, so that the actual monopoly is not quite complete. I am not going to try to force a Division. I have not enough Members on this bench


to do that, and I cannot call on big battalions. All that I can do is to ask the Government to realise that pig iron is an important raw material, affecting a great number of industries, and if the Government are going to give this industry this comparatively small protection, they are entitled to demand that the monopoly in this country shall not artificially maintain the price at a high level.

11.2 p.m.

Commander Bower: I am only speaking at all to-night because, although I tried to speak on the Board of Trade Vote, owing to the fact that so many hon. Members opposite interested in the coal industry were not content to speak on the Ministry of Mines Vote, but had to take up a great deal of time on the Board of Trade Vote as well, many of us on this side who wished to speak then were not able to get in. The present situation in the iron industry is a great deal more serious than has been pointed out by other hon. Members, and it has arisen very suddenly indeed. This duty was only taken off a little more than a year ago, and apparently the present situation has arisen much to the surprise of the industry, and of the Iron and Steel Federation in particular. There is no doubt whatever that when the duty was first imposed, the industry derived an enormous benefit from it. From a depression amounting almost to despair in 1931, we rose to a peak output in 1937, when the highest number of furnaces in blast was 135 and the average was 124, and the industry then seemed all set for a considerable period of prosperity. Then what happened? In January, 1937, consultations took place between the Iron and Steel Federation and the Import Duties Advisory Committee concerning the cost of pig iron. I do not know what influence was brought to bear by the federation, but, at any rate, on 26th February the Import Duties Advisory Committee advised that pig iron should be added to the free list, and early in March this was put into effect.
Apparently the federation decided at that time that the shortage of pig iron and scrap was so likely, to become acute that it was essential that this duty should be taken off. At the same time they were pushing home production to the highest possible level, with the result

that within a very few months not only were enormous quantities of foreign pig iron imported, but home production was going up to levels that had not hitherto been reached in this country. Then again, a sudden slackening of demand was coincident with the increased home production and the increased imports with the result that blast furnaces are being blown out all over the country like candles on a Christmas cake. Here are some remarkable figures. In 1935, pig iron production to the nearest 100,000 tons was 6,400,000 tons; in 1936, 7,700,000 tons; in 1937, 8,500,000 tons and in the first four months of 1938, it was at the rate of over 11,000,000 tons a year. If we look at the imports over the same period, we find that in 1935, they were only 128,000 tons; in 1936, 311,000 tons; in 1937, 722,000 tons and in the first four months of 1938 at the rate of 1,200,000 tons for the year.
These increases, in conjunction with the increased home production are absolutely staggering. When we add the imports of scrap for the four years under review, we find that they average about 750,000 tons a year. It appears to me that the British Iron and Steel Federation were extremely ill-advised at the time they did it, to press for the removal of this tariff. Again, I think that in reimposing the tariff now, the Government are some months too late because the furnaces are going out and a furnace cannot be put into commission at a moment's notice. If as many furnaces were put out of commission by enemy action in a war, we should come near to losing the war. It is a lamentable story. The stocks of pig iron are up to something over 1,000,000 tons at the present moment and even if we use those stocks, it seems to me that there should have been a little more foresight on the part of those responsible for running this great industry. The federation had not the entire support of the industry in their action and their action has been ill-advised. The part of the country which I represent has been very hard hit, and we feel that a little more foresight, a little more prevision in relation to the ebb and flow of production and demand should have been used in this case.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I wish to call attention to a statement which I made not many days


ago on the subject of pig iron costs which has not, as far as I know, been adequately answered by the Government. At the last meeting of the Pig Iron Association one of the biggest producers of pig iron was in favour of reducing the price by 10s. a ton, but, unfortunately, he was not in a majority, and he was ruled out. The main reason given was that the Steel Federation/in consultation with the Import Duties Advisory Committee, made representations that it would be exceedingly inconvenient if the price of pig iron were reduced at that stage, in view of the promise given that the price of steel should be maintained until 31st December, 1938.

Mr. Peat: Was the pig iron producer in question a producer of foundry pig iron?

Mr. Stokes: Yes. What I want to point out is that if the producers of pig iron are to have this preference, what the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has said is right—that the price of pig iron should be down to what is recognised as an economic level. This seriously affects our export trade. At the present time the price of pig iron in this country is 20 per cent. above American prices. It makes it extremely difficult for the producers of manufactured articles. The price of pig iron to-day is 55 per cent. above what it was in January, 1936. If it is contemplated that the Government should lay up a stock of pig iron at today's prices, I hope they will consider very seriously before taking such action, because it would be absolutely criminal; the price is far too high. I am now able to buy pig iron from Australia slightly cheaper than I can get it from this country.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Peat: I would like to point out, in connection with what has been said by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), that the foundry pig iron makers are not at present affiliated to the Iron and Steel Federation, but are controlled, from the point of view of cost, by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and their trade is recognised to be a special one, particularly in the export markets, which may require special treatment. The hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) criticised the action of the Iron

and Steel Federation in buying pig iron in bulk. I have had the privilege of saying to this House before that it is most likely that that pig iron would have been purchased by the members individually if it had not been purchased by the industry as a whole. I admit that the purchases of pig iron have spread over, perhaps, some weeks longer than they should have done if we had been able to see ahead before we entered upon them. But I think the industry took a fairly national point of view, because the risks it took have rebounded upon its own head, as a result of the attempt it made to safeguard the nation's supply of steel at a time when it was not being met by the production of pig iron in this country. We are importing at present a certain amount of pig iron from India— 17,500 tons a month—and that is the only importation which is being made to-day under the bulk purchases and contracts made by the federation.
On the question of costs, I do not think the pig iron producers in this country have a great deal to complain about so far as they have gone. I think the prices of Continental producers who compete with us are practically on the same level as prices in this country. We are afraid that, with the recession of trade in foreign countries, we may be faced with imports of a dumped character which have no relation whatever to the cost of production, and I think that, in honesty and loyalty to all engaged in the industry, the Import Duties Advisory Committee were well advised to take action in view of the condition of affairs at that time. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has put forward his own point of view, which is essentially that of the true and unadulterated Liberal in this House, that the cost of production should vary entirely with supply and demand. That may react very unfavourably to a finishing industry, if it can buy raw material at a cost below that of production. The steel industry has been trying to get away from that. We have been prepared to buy at a cost on the level of the cost of production, and it has not hurt those employed in the industry or those who have money invested in it. That is a point which goes a long way towards stabilisation, which is what we are trying to do, from the point of view of those who have their money invested in it, and, more


essentially, of those who have their employment invested in it, because they are the first people who suffer from a recession or a slump in trade.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) seemed to echo to a certain extent the Debate that we had last week, in which the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) threw aspersions at the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The position is that that is an absolutely independent committee, and I believe that every Member of this House would admit that it is an independent committee.

Mr. T. Williams: I think that the hon. Member must admit that neither individually nor collectively did I reflect upon the Import Duties Advisory Committee as such. What I said, implied and meant was that the Import Duties Advisory Committee is not a sufficient body to be the determining power in fixing prices for any and every commodity in the country.

Mr. Peat: I would ask the hon. Member for Don Valley why it is not a satisfactory body to fix prices?

Mr. Williams: First, because they have no costings system and are dealing with so many other industries in the country that it is hopeless and impossible to get to the root of prices.

Mr. Peat: The hon. Member has slipped rather hopelessly into my hands, because they have a costings system, which is investigated by an independent accountant and on which they base all their decisions with regard to prices. A body of five or six, or four or five, or three or four men, if they are given the facts in each case, can decide.

Mr. Williams: Given the facts by whom?

Mr. Peat: By an independent accountant and the industry.

Mr. Williams: Is it not true that the industry itself supplies the Import Duties Advisory Committee and their costings department with the figures?

Mr. Peat: Who is to supply the figures? Is the hon. Member going to ask the manufacturers of boots to tell them the cost of supply?

Mr. Williams: Does not the hon. Gentleman see where he is getting to? He told the House who supplied the figures, and that the Commission act upon them.

Mr. Peat: I maintain that the only people who can supply the facts and figures are those who use and understand them, and that the" Import Duties Advisory Committee submit these facts and figures to the scrutiny of an impartial accountant. If that is not sufficient for the hon. Member for Don Valley, there is nothing in the administration of this great democracy in which we live which can possibly satisfy him.

Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that the only result of this joint investigation is that the price of steel today is 15 per cent. above the price of American steel?

Mr. Peat: I cannot answer that categorically, but it may very well be that the price of steel in this country is above the price of American steel delivered into this country. Probably the hon. Member knows better than I do that; the American steel industry is not using 30 per cent. of its production capacity and is seeking any avenue in which it can dump its products into any country of the world without any relation whatever to the cost of production.

Mr. Stokes: My price is the price in New York in the American market, and not the price delivered in England.

Mr. Peat: I am surprised to hear that the price of American steel in New York is lower than the price of steel in this country. I can only assume that it is still a case of dumping. I put it to the hon. Member that the cost of American steel at the present moment, delivered in New York, cannot be far away from the cost of steel in this country.

Mr. Stokes: American steel to-day is £10 5s. and English steel, £11 13s.

An Hon. Member: What is the cost of production?

Mr. Stokes: It is higher in America. Wages are higher.

Mr. Peat: I ought not to argue this point, because I am not in a position to state the facts as I should have liked. If the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) says that the price of steel in


America is, in New York, lower than our cost in this country, I must accept it, but there must be some mitigating reason, because I have recently seen correspondence between tank builders in this country and tank builders in Chicago and Pittsburg, in which the Chicago and Pittsburg builders, quoting for the same contract— I think it was a contract in the Far East —were in a position to under-quote our own people very considerably. In the course of conversation they admitted that the reason for their price being so low was because they had to sell their products at any price anywhere.

Mr. Stokes: I submit to the hon. Member and to the House that the reason the cost of steel here is so much higher is the refusal to put iron down to a proper level.

Mr. Peat: I know the House is waiting to get on, and I do not wish to continue to argue with my hon. Friend, who is a prominent industrialist, and who is arguing on the same basis as the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) on supply and demand. If he can get his supply, he is prepared to squeeze the supplier until he gets his raw materials at a price which bears no relation whatever to the cost. When he has done that, he is satisfied, but in doing that he has sold his own position, because his consumer, the man who buys his products, eventually gets back on to the man who produces for him. Unless he is prepared to pay a decent price for the raw materials for his products he will start a system which will react upon his own head, as it has reacted time and time again on the heads of those who have acted in a similar way. As a typical employer of labour and a typical industrialist, I am not at all surprised to hear what he had to say.
May I, in conclusion, refer to one statement which was particularly unfair? That was the statement that our present arrangement for regulating operations was one which does not condone elasticity. The pig iron industry is a typical case. We found that we were unable to supply our own requirements in pig iron. There was an import duty on imported pig iron, and the industry asked the Import Duties Advisory Committee to consider taking off that import duty, which they did. That put the country in a position to import all the pig iron it required for its

steel manufacture and when we came to the end of that period and found that as a nation we could produce all the pig iron we required, we again went to that impartial body and asked it to reimpose the duty. That is a sign of great elasticity. It means that we are in a position to take it off when we do not want it and to put it on when we want it, that is when the employing people of this country require it. In those circumstances I should like to supp>ort, though it may be unnecessary, the reimposition of this duty.

11.24 P.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Will the House allow me three or four minutes to amplify what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) has said so excellently in answering the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). The hon. Member for Don Valley disclaimed any intention of fanning into flame the embers of the tariff controversy, but in what he has said he has produced something closely akin to a conflagration. He argued that we were imposing a duty against three friendly allied countries. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) applauds that, but I did not hear the suggestion as an additional argument that as a consequence of these Orders the nations of Belgium, France and the United States are going to cease to be allied and friendly to ourselves. It used to be an argument against tariffs that they caused bad blood. I submit that tariffs do not by themselves produce bad relationships. Tariff barriers may follow bad relations, as indeed they did recently between ourselves and Ireland, but in isolation they certainly do not cause bad relationships.
The three friendly countries specified by the hon. Member for Don Valley seem to me a most admirable refutation of one of the most stubborn fallacies of free importers. These three countries are friendly to us for reasons which are wholly distinct from any fiscal or tariff controversy. The hon. Member for Don Valley managed to discover by some intellectual ingenuity that these Orders prove the inefficiency of the tariff system. They prove nothing of the kind. They prove what we who believe in moderate Protection have always contended, that a tariff system honestly and objectively worked, as It is by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, is a


flexible and effective means of fostering our own industries. There is in our system no rigidity. It is far less rigid than was anticipated when it was introduced in 1932. If the few men to whom the hon. Member for the Don Valley referred are temporarily out of work, these tariff Orders may help to put them back. As one who represents a large industrial constituency, I contend that this is well worth doing, be it on a small or on a large scale. The case for these Orders, I think, is unanswerable, and I shall support them without cavil or criticism.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order, 1938, dated the eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 5) Order, 1938, dated the eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

POT SCOURERS.

Resolved,

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 4) Order, 1938, dated the tenth day

of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved."—[Mr. Cross.]

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY ACT, 1937.

Resolved,

"That the Cattle (Import Regulation) Revocation Order, 1938, dated the eighteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Board of Trade under the Livestock Industry Act, 1937, a copy of which was presented to this House on the eighteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved."—[Mr. Cross.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Ordered,

"That Mr. Secretary Colville be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and that Captain Wallace be added to the Committee."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.